LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


THE  NEGRO  IN  TENNESSEE,  1790-1865 


A  Study  in  Southern  Politics 


CALEB  PBRRY  PATTERSON,  M.  A.,  LL.  B. 


Submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements  for 

the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  the 

Faculty  of  Political  Science,  Columbia 

University,  New  York  City 


CONTENTS 

Preface   7-     8 

I.      Introduction    of    Slavery    into    Tennessee 9-   24 

I.     The  status  of  the  negro  in  North  Carolina, 

1693-1790  12-  21 

A.  Privileges    12-  18 

B.  Restrictions  18-  21 

II.  The   status  of  the  negro  in  the   Franklin 

State,  1785-1788 22-  23 

III.     The  status  of  the  negro  in  the  Southwest 

Territory,    1790-1796 23-  24 

II.      The  Status  of  the  Slave  in  Tennessee,  1796-1865 25-   58 

I.  The  Privileges  of  Slaves 25-  30 

A.  Hunting    25-  26 

B.  Travel    26 

C.  Suits  for  freedom 26-  28 

D.  Trial  by  Jury 28-  30 

II.     Disabilities  of   Slaves 30-  33 

III.  Relations  of  Master  and  Society 34-  38 

A.  Liabilities  of  the  master  to  society....  34-  36 

1.  For  his  own  acts 34-  35 

2.  For  the  acts  of  his  slaves 35-  36 

B.  Liabilities  of  society  to  the  master....  36-  38 

IV.  The  Patrol  System 38-  41 

V.     Special  Problems  of  Slave  Government 41-  52 

A.  The  runaway  41-  43 

B.  Importation  of  slaves 43-  44 

C.  The  stealing  of  slaves 44-  45 

D.  Trading  with  slaves 46-  49 

E.  Insurrections    49-  50 

F.  Unlawful  assembly  of  slaves 50-  51 

G.  Punishment  of  slaves 51-  52 

VI.     Title   of   Slaves 52-  55 

VII.     The  Law  of  Increase 55-  56 

VIII.     The  Legal  Status  of  the  Slave 56-  58 

III.  Economics  of  Slavery  in  Tennessee 59-   79 

I.     Slavery  an  Expression  of  the  Soil 59-  64 

II.  The  Management  of  the  Plantation 64-  72 

III.     Was  Slavery  Profitable  in  Tennessee? 72-  79 

IV.  Anti-Slavery     Societies 80-101 

I.     The  Tennessee  Manumission  Society 80-  89 

II.     The  Humane  Protecting  Society 89 

III.  The  Emancipation  Labor  Society 89-  91 


4  Contents 

IV.     The  Moral,  Religious  Manumission  Society 

of  West  Tennessee 91-  91 

V.     The  Tennessee  Colonization  Society 94-101 

V,      The  Religious  and  Social  Aspects  of  Slavery 102-152 

.     I.     The    Methodists 104-125 

II.     The    Baptists 125-131 

III.  Cumberland  Presbyterians 131-136 

IV.  The  Friends 136-139 

V.     The  Presbyterians 139-148 

VI.     The  Episcopalians 148-152 

VI.      The  Legal  Status  of  the  Free  Negro 153-175 

I.     The  Establishment  of  a  Policy 153-160 

A.  The  policy  of  North  Carolina 153 

B.  The  policy  of  Tennessee  in  1831 153 

C.  Changes  in  the  policy  from  1831  to 

1865    153-160 

II.     System  of  Registration  of  Free  Negroes....   161-162 

III.  Protection  of  Free  Negroes 162 

IV.  Suffrage  for  Free  Negroes 162-173 

A.  In  North  Carolina 162-164 

B.  In  the  Convention  of  1796 164-167 

C.  From  1796  to  1834 167-168 

D.  Its  abolition  by  the   Convention  of 

1834 168-173 

V.     Limitations    upon    the     freedom     of    free 

negroes   173 

VI.     The  Status  of  the  Free  Negro 174-175 

VII.     Abolition    176-198 

I.     Private  Abolition 176-180 

A.  Methods 176-179 

(1)  By  Deed. 

(2)  By  Will. 

(3)  By  Bill  of  Sale. 

(4)  By  Implication. 

(5)  By  Effect  of  Foreign  Laws. 

B.  Extent  of  Emancipation  in  Tennessee   179-180 
II.     Anti-slavery  Leaders 180-185 

III.  Abolition   Literature 185-187 

IV.  Petitions  to  the  Legislature  for  Abolition....   187-189 
V.     Abolition  in  the  Convention  of  1934 189-195 

VI.     Abolition  Sentiment  after  1834 195-198 

VIII.      Conclusions 199-202 

IX.      Bibliography  202-209 


Contents  5 

X.      Appendices 209-213 

A.  Anti-Slavery  Societies  of  Tennessee 209 

B.  Tennessee  Colonization  Society 209 

C.  Anti-Slavery  Leaders  in  Tennessee 210 

D.  List  of  Emigrants 210-211 

E.  Vice-President  of  American  Colonization  So- 

ciety from  Tennessee 211 

F.  Comparative    List    of    Manumission    Societies 

and  Members  in  the  United  States 211 

G.  Slave  and  Free  Negro  Population  in  Tennessee  212 
H.     Comparative  Value  of  Land  and  Slaves  in  the 

Three  Divisions  of  Tennessee,  1859 212 

I.     Approximate  Value  of  Property,  Slaves,  Land, 

and  Cotton  in  Tennessee,  1859 212 

J.  Classification  of  Slave-holders  in  Tennessee 
and  the  United  States,  on  the  basis  of  num- 
ber of  slaves  held,  1860 213 


PREFACE 

This  work  was  undertaken  to  discover  the  exact  status 
of  the  negro  in  one  of  the  border  states.  An  effort  has 
been  made  to  give  definite  information  as  to  the  legal,  social, 
economic,  and  religious  condition  of  the  negro  from  his  in- 
troduction into  slavery  in  Colonial  Western  North  Carolina 
to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Tennessee  in  1865. 

The  study  reveals  the  struggles  of  the  slave  from  a  status 
of  servitude  under  the  common  law  through  the  institution 
of  slavery  regulated  by  an  extensive  slave-code  into  the 
final  condition  of  an  almost  helpless  citizen  with  a  responsi- 
bility for  which  he  was  only  partially  prepared. 

The  status  of  the  free  negro  is  also  established  in  his  rela- 
tions to  both  the  slave  and  the  whites.  It  was  rather  dis- 
appointing to  find  that  the  free  negro  was  more  disadvan- 
tageously  situated  than  the  slave.  He  never  attained  either 
civil  or  political  equality,  although  he  exercised  the  suf- 
frage until  1834.  He  was  subject  to  a  special  code  different 
from  either  the  slave  code  or  the  regular  code. 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  negro,  whether  slave  or  free, 
was  making  progress.  He  was  receiving  an  industrial 
training  without  which  he  could  never  have  sustained  him- 
self without  help,  when  freedom  came.  His  training  for 
active  participation  in  the  body  politic  was  negligible.  He 
was  taught  the  lesson  of  being  obedient  to  law. 

A  constructive  part  of  the  study  is  the  disclosure  of  a 
large  body  of  loyal  friends  of  the  negro  in  all  his  stages  of 
development.  These  consisted  of  not  only  the  abolitionists, 
the  Friends,  and  the  anti-slavery  forces  generally,  but  of 
more  conservative  individuals  who  saw  that  the  negro  could 
be  fitted  for  freedom  only  by  a  gradual  process.  The  courts 
of  the  state  deserve  special  mention  in  this  connection. 

The  study  has  been  a  difficult  one  to  make  because  of  the 
scarcity  of  the  sources  and  the  deplorable  condition  of  those 
that  were  available.  The  county  records  of  Tennessee  have 
either  been  burned,  thrown  away,  or  thrown  together  in 
heaps  in  the  basement  of  county  court  houses.  The  state 


8  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

archives  are  in  the  attic  of  the  Tennessee  Capitol,  covered 
with  dust,  and  are  practically  inaccessible  for  any  thorough 
study.  The  statutes  of  the  state,  records  of  courts,  reports 
of  anti-slavery  societies,  church  minutes,  petitions,  slave 
codes,  periodicals,  travels,  reminiscences,  and  newspapers 
are  the  principal  sources  consulted.  A  goodly  number  of 
general,,  state,  and  church  histories  and  biographies  proved 
useful  for  general  information. 

The  work  was  begun  under  the  direction  of  Professors 
'  Jernegan  and  Dodd  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  and  con- 
tinued under  the  guidance  of  Professor  Albert  Bushnell  Hart 
of  Harvard,  Professor  U.  B.  Phillips  of  the  University  of 
Michigan,  and  Professor  William  A.  Dunning  of  Columbia 
University.  Professor  B.  B.  Kendrick  of  Columbia  Uni- 
versity was  especially  helpful  in  organizing  the  material. 
But  for  the  stimulating  and  sympathetic  assistance  of  these 
men,  the  study  could  not  have  been  completed.  The  author 
alone  is  responsible  for  any  errors  of  fact  and  the  con- 
clusions. 

CALEB  PERRY  PATTERSON. 

The  University  of  Texas,  Austin,  Texas. 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 

The  introduction  of  slavery  into  Tennessee  was  a  part  of 
the  westward  movement  of  colonization.  It  had  passed  the 
experimental  stage  of  its  development  in  North  Carolina 
before  Tennessee  acquired  an  independent  political  exist- 
ence.1 Its  economic,  social,  and  legal  aspects  had  largely 
been  determined  before  Tennessee  was  even  settled.2  As  a 
system  of  labor,  it  had  proved  a  valuable  adjunct  to  the 
sturdy  pioneers  in  converting  the  wilderness  of  North  Caro- 
lina into  a  growing  community  that  began  immediately  to 
look  forward  to  statehood.3  As  a  social  institution,  it  had 
been  left  primarily  to  the  regulation  of  custom.  As  a  prob- 
lem of  government,  an  elaborate  code  had  been  enacted  for 
its  control.  Its  establishment  and  regulation  in  North  Car- 
olina prior  to  1790  constitute,  therefore,  the  genesis  of  this 
study. 

Negro  slaves  were  brought  into  North  Carolina  in  1663 
by  Virginia  immigrants  who  planted  a  settlement  on  the 
Albemarle  River.4  A  group  of  more  thrifty  Virginians, 
with  a  large  number  of  slaves,  settled  in  the  central  part  of 
the  state  about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.5  A 
number  of  small  farmers  came  to  the  western  part  of  the 
state  with  their  slaves  at  about  the  same  time.6  It  is  im- 

1Tennessee  belonged  to  Virginia  from  1607  to  1663,  to  Carolina 
from  1663  to  1693,  and  to  North  Carolina  from  1693  to  1790.  Gar- 
rett,  W.  R.,  and  Goodpasture,  A.  V.,  History  of  Tennessee,  p.  14. 

2The  first  settlements  in  Tennessee  were  made  in  1769  and  1772. 
Ibid.,  pp.  49-52. 

8The  settlements  of  western  North  Carolina  became  the  State  of 
Franklin  in  1785,  the  Southwest  Territory  in  1790,  and  the  State  of 
Tennessee  in  1796.  Ibid.,  pp.  91,  105,  and  127. 

4Doyle,  J.  A.,  The  English  Colonies  in  America,  I,  331. 

r>Bassett,  John  Spencer,  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies,  Vol.  14, 
p.  18. 

GIbid.,  p.  19, 


10  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

possible  to  state  the  exact  number  of  slaves  owned  by  these 
early  settlers. 

The  opportuneness  of  these  settlements  is  shown  by  a 
number  of  conditions.  The  contest  between  negro  slavery 
and  white  servitude  had  been  settled  in  favor  of  slavery. 
The  Tuscorora  Indians,  the  implacable  enemies  of  negroes, 
were  driven  out  of  the  colony  in  1772.  The  moral  evils  of 
slavery  had  not  appeared.7  The  English  government  in 
1663,  by  chartering  the  Royal  African  Company  to  engage 
in  the  slave  trade,  became  interested  in  the  development  of 
slavery,  and,  thereafter,  discouraged  the  importation  of 
indented  servants  into  the  colonies  in  order  that  this  com- 
pany might  have  a  larger  market  for  slaves.8  It  was  early 
recognized  that  the  industrial  life  of  the  colonies  offered 
practically  no  place  to  the  white  servant  at  the  expiration 
of  his  indenture.  He  was  not  financially  able  to  purchase 
land  and  white  servants  or  negro  slaves,  necessary  to  farm- 
ing, nor  could  he  find  employment  in  the  villages  and  small 
towns,  because  they  were  not  sufficiently  industrialized  at 
this  time  to  offer  such  opportunities. 

These  influences  produced  a  rapid  increase  in  the  slave 
population  of  the  colonies.  In  1709,  Rev.  John  Adams,  a 
missionary,  reported  800  slaves  in  North  Carolina.9  In 
1717,  there  were  1,100  slaves  out  of  a  taxable  population  of 
2,000.10  Governor  Burrington  stated  that  there  were  6,000 
in  1730.11  The' census  of  1754  showed  a  population  of  9,128 
slaves.  In  1756,  there  were  10,800  negro  taxables  and  as 
the  ratio  of  taxable  negroes  (those  of  the  age  of  twelve 
and  above)  to  the  total  negro  population  was  about  ten  to 
eighteen,  there  must  have  been,  at  this  time,  approximately 
20,000  slaves  in  the  colony.  There  were  39,000  in  1767.12 


?Doyle,  I,  389. 

8Colonial   Entry  Book,  No.   Ixxxii,   p.   129.     (Quoted  by   Doyle,   I, 
386.) 

9Bassett,  Op.  Cit.,  p.  20. 
10N.  C.  Col.  Records,  II,  17. 
"Ibid.,  V,  320. 

.,  VII,  5391. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  11 

It  is  probable  that  the  first  slave  was  brought  into  Ten- 
nessee in  1766.13  There  are  court  records  which  show  that 
slaves  were  a  part  of  an  estate  in  Washington  County  in 
1788.13  When  John  Sevier  moved  to  Nollichucky  in  1788, 
he  owned  slaves.13  James  Robertson  brought  a  "negro  fel- 
low" to  Nashville  in  1779.13  John  Donelson  was  accom- 
panied by  negroes  on  his  famous  voyage  to  Nashville  in  the 
winter  of  1779-80.13  A  court  record,  dated  November,  1788, 
at  Jonesboro,  Tennessee,  shows  that  Andrew  Jackson  owned 
a  slave  when  he  was  only  twenty-one  years  of  age.14  On  the 
sixth  of  September,  1794,  a  negro  belonging  to  Peter  Turner 
was  stolen  by  the  Indians  near  the  Sumner  Court  House.15 
Miss  Jane  Thomas,  who  came  with  her  parents  to  Nashville 
in  1804,  tells  an  interesting  story  of  a  prominent  negro,  who 
was  highly  regarded  by  the  whites.16  There  was  also  in 
Nashville  in  1805,  a  famous  "Black  Bob"  who  ran  a  tavern. 
So  it  is  seen  that  slaves  accompanied  the  westward  move- 
ment into  Tennessee,  and  that  some  of  them,  became  rather 
prominent  free  negroes.  In  1796,  when  the  census  of  the 
Southwest  Territory  was  taken  to  ascertain  if  it  contained 
sufficient  inhabitants  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a 
state,  it  had  a  population  of  77,262,  of  which  10,613  were 
slaves.17  The  population  of  East  Tennessee  was  65,339, 
of  which  twelve  and  one-half  per  cent  were  slaves.  The 


13Hale,  W.  J.,  and  Merritt,  D.  L.,  History  of  Tennessee,  II,  292. 

14"A  bill  of  sale  from  Mica j ah  to  Andrew  Jackson,  Esquire,  for  a 
negro  woman  named  Nancy  about  eighteen  or  twenty  years  of  age 
was  proven  in  open  court  by  the  oath  of  David  Allison,  a  subscribing 
witness,  and  ordered  to  be  recorded."  Record  of  the  Court  of  Pleas 
and  Quarter  Sessions,  Jonesboro,  Tennessee,  for  November  Term, 
1788. 

15Haywood,  John,  The  Civil  and  Political  History  of  the  State  of 
Tennessee,  406. 

16 (He)  "was  a  very  prominent  negro.  He  had  a  garden,  and  sup- 
plied a  great  many  people  with  vegetables.  His  oldest  daughter  mar- 
ried Graham,  a  barber.  She  had  a  big  wedding  and  invited  all  the 
prominent  white  people  in  town,  and  they  all  went.  He  was  a  very 
respectable,  upright,  humble  negro.  General  Andrew  Jackson  at- 
tended the  wedding,  and  Dr.  McNairy  danced  the  reel  with  the  bride." 
Hale  and  Merritt,  II,  293. 

17Ramsey,  J.  G.  M.,  The  Annals  of  Tennessee,  648. 


12  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

population  of  West  Tennessee  (now  Middle  Tennessee)  was 
11,824,  of  which  twenty  per  cent  were  slaves. ls 

The  legal  basis  of  slavery  developed  contemporary  with 
the  expansion  of  settlement  toward  the  western  part  of  the 
colony.  The  famous  law  of  1741  is  regarded  as  the  basis 
of  the  slave  code  of  North  Carolina,  although  the  Act  of 
1715  marks  the  beginning  of  slave  legislation  in  this  colony. 
The  laws  of  North  Carolina  were,  in  1790,  made  the  legal 
basis  of  the  government  of  the  Southwest  Territory,19  which 
became  the  State  of  Tennessee  in  1796.  These  laws  consti- 
tute the  beginnings  of  the  slave  code  of  Tennessee.  The  com- 
mon law  status  of  the  negro  was,  in  this  introductory  period, 
gradually  changed  to  a  statutory  basis.  This  development 
took,  primarily,  the  form  of  granting  privileges  to,  and  plac- 
ing restrictions  upon,  the  negro.  There  were  three  political 
organizations  that  participated  in  this  development :  North 
Carolina,  the  State  of  Franklin,  and  the  Southwest  Terri- 
tory. 

I.    THE  STATUS  OF  THE  NEGRO  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA  FROM 

1693-1790 

A.      PRIVILEGES — 

1.  Hunting:  Slaves  were  permitted  to  hunt  on  their 
masters'  plantations,  but,  by  the  Act  of  1729,  were  prohib- 
ited from  hunting  elsewhere  unless  they  were  accompanied 
by  a  white  man.20  If  the  slaves  violated  this  restriction,  the 
master  paid  a  fine  of  twenty  shillings  to  the  owner  of  the 
land  on  which  the  slaves  were  hunting.  Slaves  were  not 
permitted  to  be  armed  in  any  way,  or  hunt  anywhere,  un- 
less they  held  a  certificate  from  their  master,  granting  this 
privilege.  Any  citizen  could  seize  an  armed  slave  and  de- 
liver him  to  a  constable  whose  duty  it  was  to  administer 
twenty  lashes  on  the  slave's  naked  back.  The  master  was 
charged  a  fee  on  recovering  such  a  slave.21 


and  Merritt,  II,  294. 
19Iredell,  James,  Laws  of  State  of  North  Carolina,  p.  85. 
2°Acts  of  G.  A.  of  N.  C.,  1729,  Ch.  5,  Sec.  7. 
2iActs  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  40. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  13 

The  master  was  permitted  to  send  a  slave  on  business 
missions,  or  to  designate  one  slave  to  hunt  on  his  plantation, 
to  care  for  his  stock,  or  to  kill  game  for  his  family ;  but  this 
could  only  be  done  by  the  master's  securing,  from  the  Chair- 
man of  the  County  Court,  a  permit  which  specified  the  slave 
that  was  granted  such  privileges.  This  was  an  ineffectual 
regulation,  and  in  1753,  the  master  was  required  to  give 
bond  to  the  County  Court,  with  good  security,  to  guarantee 
the  county  against  damages  that  might  be  done  by  a  slave 
enjoying  any  special  privileges.22  Such  permission  was 
granted  only  during  the  time  of  cultivation  or  harvesting 
of  crops. 

This  act  empowered  the  justices  of  the  county  courts  to 
district  their  counties  and  appoint  three  free-holders  as 
searchers  in  each  district,  who,  under  a  very  strict  oath,23 
were  to  disarm  the  slaves  of  their  district.  These  persons 
were  exempted  from  services  as  constables,  jurors,  on  the 
roads,  and  in  the  militia,  and  from  the  payment  of  county 
and  parish  taxes.24  This  legislation  laid  the  foundation 
for  the  patrol  system  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee. 

Slaves  were  especially  prohibited  from  killing  wild  deer, 
either  on  their  own  initiative  or  by  command  of  their 
masters  or  overseers.25  For  violation  of  this  inhibition, 
they  suffered  punishment  in  the  first  instance,  and  their 
masters  or  overseers  in  the  second.  This  prohibition  was 
constantly  strengthened  by  later  legislation.26  These  re- 
strictions were  intended  to  prevent  damages  to  crops,  and  to 
limit  the  opportunities  of  the  slaves  to  run  away  and 
organize  insurrections.  By  these  acts,  masters  were  made 


22 Acts  of  1753,  Ch.  VI,  Sees.  2-3. 

23This  oath  read:  "I,  A.  B.,  do  swear  that  I  will,  as  searcher  for 
guns,  swords,  and  other  weapons  among  the  slaves  of  my  district, 
faithfully,  and  as  privately  as  I  can,  discharge  the  trust  reposed  in 
me,  as  the  law  directs,  to  the  best  of  my  power.  So  help  me  God." 
Acts  of  1753,  Ch.  VI,  Sec.  4. 

2*Acts  of  1753,  Ch.  VI,  Sec.  6. 

25Acts  of  1738,  Ch.  X,  Sees.  1-3. 

26 Acts  of  1745,  Ch.  3,  Sec.  3;  Acts  of  1768,  Ch.  13,  Sec.  2;  Acts  of 
1784,  Ch.  33,  Sec.  2. 


14  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

very  largely  responsible  for  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the 
community. 

2.  Travel:     The  slave  was  permitted  to  travel,  in  the 
daytime,  "the  most  usual  and  accustomed  road" ;  but  he  sub- 
jected himself  to  a  whipping,  not  exceeding  forty  lashes,  if 
he  violated  this  restriction.27     He  was  not  permitted  to 
travel  at  night  or  visit  the  quarters  of  other  slaves.     He  was 
subject  to  forty  lashes,  and  the  visited  slave  twenty  lashes, 
for  violation  of  this  regulation.     Masters,  however,  were 
riot  prohibited  from  sending  their  slaves  on  business  mis- 
sions with  written  permits.     In  1741,  an  exception  to  the 
above  regulation  was  made  for  negroes  wearing  liveries.28 

3.  Possession  of  Property:     Slaves  at  first  were  per- 
mitted, not  by  law  but  by  custom,  to  own  horses,  hogs,  cattle, 
sheep,  poultry  and  to  cultivate  small  areas  for  their  own 
use.     They  frequently  acquired  sufficient  property  to  buy 
themselves.     They  were  protected  from  professional  traders 
by  law.29     It  soon  developed,  however,  that  this  privilege 
increased  their  disposition  to  steal,  and  multiplied  their 
opportunities  of  contact  with  outsiders.     The  accessibility 
of  plantations  by  means  of  creeks,  bays,  and  rivers  stim- 
ulated illicit  trade.     This  situation  finally  caused  them  to 
be  prohibited  by  law  from  owning  property.30 

4.  Protection:    The  Locke  Constitution  of  1669  for  the 
Carolinas  stated  that  "Every  freeman  of  Carolina  shall  have 
absolute  power  and  authority  over  his  slaves,  of  what  opin- 


27Acts  of  1729,  Ch.  5,  Sec.  8. 

28Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  43. 

29Anyone  trading  with  slaves  "without  the  license  or  consent  in 
writing  under  the  head  of  his  or  her  or  their  master  or  owner. . . 
shall  forfeit  treble  the  value  of  the  thing  bought,  sold,  or  traded, 
trucked  or  borrowed  or  lent."  Acts  of  1715,  Ch.  46,  Sec.  10. 

30No  slave  was  "permitted,  on  any  pretense  whatever,  to  raise 
any  horses,  cattle  or  hogs;  and  all  horses,  cattle  and  hogs  that,  six 
months  from  the  date  thereof,  shall  belong  to  any  slave,  or  of  any 
slave's  work  in  this  government,  shall  be  seized  and  sold  by  the 
church  wardens  of  the  Parish  where  such  horses,  cattle  or  hogs  shall 
be,  and  the  profit  thereof  be  applied,  one-half  to  the  use  of  the  said 
Parish  and  the  other  half  to  the  Informer."  Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24, 
Sec.  44;  see  also  Acts  of  1779,  Ch.  5,  Sec.  6. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  15 

ion  or  religion  soever."31  This  was  done  to  counteract  the 
theory  that  a  Christian  could  not  be  a  slave.  This  estab- 
lished the  government  of  the  master  over  the  slave.  The 
master  became  the  agent  of  the  government  in  the  control 
of  his  slaves,  and  it  became  the  government's  duty  to  see 
that  its  agents  dealt  humanely  with  the  slaves.  The  gov- 
ernors of  North  Carolina  tried  in  vain  to  secure  the  passage 
of  laws  that  would  offer  the  proper  protection  to  slaves.32 
In  1754,  Governor  Dobbs  made  an  unsuccessful  effort  to 
accomplish  this  result.33  In  1773,  William  Hooper  secured 
the  passage  of  a  bill  to  prevent  the  wilful  and  malicious 
killing  of  slaves,  but  the  Governor  vetoed  it  because  "it  was 
inconsistent  with  His  Majesty's  instruction  to  pass  it,  as  it 
does  not  reserve  the  fines  imposed  by  it  pursuant  to  their 
instruction."34  In  1774  it  was  made  a  criminal  offense  to  be 
guilty  of  willingly  and  maliciously  killing  a  slave.  The 
penalty  for  first  offense  was  twelve  months'  imprisonment, 
and  death  without  benefit  of  clergy  for  the  second  offense.35 
5.  Trial  of  Slaves:  A  special  court  was  established  for 
the  trial  of  slaves.  In  1741,  a  court  of  two  or  more  justices 
of  the  peace  and  four  free-holders,  who  were  slave-holders, 
was  empowered  to  try  all  manner  of  crimes  and  offenses 
committed  by  slaves.36  Negroes,  mulattoes,  and  Indians, 
bond  or  free,  could  be  witnesses.  The  chairman  of  the 
court  always  charged  the  witness  before  the  examination  to 
tell  the  truth.37  The  master  of  the  slave  could  appear  at  his 
trial  and  defend  him  before  the  court.38  In  1783,  a  single 
justice  was  constituted  a  court  for  the  trial  of  non-capital 
offenses.39  For  capital  offenses,  four  slave-holders  re- 
mained a  part  of  the  court  as  provided  by  the  Act  of  1741. 

31Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  31,  Sec.  2. 

ssActs  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  48. 

«aibid.,  Sec.  51. 

S4Ibid.,  Sec.  52. 

35 Acts  of  1774,  Ch.  31,  Sec.  2. 

36Acts  of  1741,  Sec.  48,  Ch.  24. 

"Ibid.,  Sec.  51. 

3»Ibid.,  Sec.  52. 

89 Acts  of  1783,  Ch.  14,  Sec.  2. 


16  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

This  difference  in  the  mode  of  the  trial  of  the  two  classes  of 
oifenses  is  evidently  due  to  economic  influences. 

Since  this  court  was  not  one  of  the  regular  courts,  it  sat 
at  any  time  and  thus  prevented  the  master  from  suffering 
excessive  loss  of  the  slave's  time  between  terms  of  court. 
This  court  had  rather  free  procedure  and  broad  juris- 
diction.40 

6.  Witness:    The  slave  was  permitted  to  be  a  witness  in 
the  trial  of  other  slaves,  free  negroes,  and  mulattoes.41     He 
was  not  permitted  to  give  testimony  in  court  in  a  case  to 
which  a  white  man  was  a  party.42     His  paganism  was  a 
partial  basis  for  denying  him  this  privilege.43     His  moral 
depravity  and  social  prejudice  were,  undoubtedly,  the  main 
forces  in  making  this  restriction  a  universal  law  of  slavery. 

The  slave  was  cautioned  against  false  swearing  because 
he  generally  had  little  regard  for  his  word.  If  he  was  con- 
victed of  false  swearing,  one  ear  was  nailed  to  the  pillory 
for  one  hour  and  then  cut  off.  The  other  ear  was  treated 
in  the  same  way ;  and  to  complete  this  inhuman  punishment, 
the  slave  was  given  thirty-nine  lashes  on  his  back.44 

7.  Manumission:    Manumission  was  the  door  of  escape 
from  slavery  that  was  constantly  open  to  the  slave.     At 
common  law,  a  master  could  free  his  slaves  on  the  basis  of 
any  agreement  that  he  might  make  with  them.     The  owner 


40It  was  directed  "to  take  for  evidence  the  confession  of  the  of- 
fender, the  oath  of  one  or  more  credible  witnesses,  or  such  testimony 
of  negroes,  mulattoes  or  Indians,  bond  or  free,  with  pregnant  cir- 
cumstances as  to  them  shall  seem  convincing,  without  solemnity  of 
jury;  and  the  offender  being  then  found  guilty,  to  pass  such  judg- 
ment upon  the  offender,  according  to  their  discretion,  as  the  nature 
cf  the  offense  may  require;  and  on  such  judgment  to  award  execu- 
tion." Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sees.  48-52. 

4ilbid.,  Sec.  48. 

42"A11  negroes,  mulattoes,  bond  or  free,  to  the  third  generation, 
and  Indian  servants  and  slaves,  shall  be  deemed  to  be  taken  as  per- 
sons incapable  in  law  to  be  witnesses  in  any  case  whatsoever,  except 
against  each  other."  Acts  of  1746,  Ch.  2,  Secc.  50. 

43Bassett,  Op.  Cit.,  p.  30. 

44Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Secc.  50. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  17 

of  a  slave  could  dispose  of  him  like  any  other  piece  of  prop- 
erty. The  spirit  of  manumission  was  so  promoted  by  the 
churches  and  by  the  doctrine  of  natural  rights  of  the  Amer- 
ican Revolution  that  the  State,  in  self  defense,  placed  a 
limitation  on  the  common  law  method  of  manumission.45 
After  1777,  slaves  could  be  freed  only  on  a  basis  of  meritori- 
ous .service,  of  which  the  county  court  was  the  judge.46 
Slaves  freed  by  any  other  method  could  be  resold  into  slavery 
by  the  court. 

The  "pernicious  practice"  of  manumitting  slaves  at  com- 
mon law  continued,47  and  the  county  court  began  to  resell 
such  negroes  into  slavery.  The  power  of  the  court  to  give 
valid  title  in  such  sales  was  doubted,  and  the  legislature  was 
forced  by  special  act  to  guarantee  the  validity  of  the  sale 
of  illegally  liberated  slaves,  made  by  the  county  courts.48 
The  preamble  to  this  measure  states  that  "many  negroes 
are  now  going  at  large,  to  the  terror  of  the  good  people  of 
this  state."49  This  law  was  weak  in  that  the  power  of  ap- 
prehending illegally  liberated  slaves  was  optional  in  free- 
holders only.  In  1788,  the  state  gave  any  freeman  the 
power  to  inform  a  justice  of  the  peace  of  any  such  slave, 
and  required  such  justice  to  issue  to  the  sheriff  a  warrant 
for  the  arrest  of  the  slave.50  This  legislation  indicates  a 
growth  of  the  manumission  movement  in  the  face  of  legal 
restrictions,  and,  also,  registers  a  protest  against  the  con- 
servative forces  of  society. 


45The  preamble  to  this  act  reads:  "Whereas  the  evil  and  pernicious 
practice  of  freeing  slaves  in  this  state,  ought  at  this  alarming  and 
critical  time  to  be  guarded  against  by  every  friend  and  well-wisher  to 
his  country."  Acts  of  1777,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  1. 

4«Acts  of  1777,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  2. 

47"Whereas  before  the  passing  of  the  said  act,  and  since  the  six- 
teenth day  of  April,  One  Thousand  Seven  Hundred  and  Seventy-five, 
divers  evil-minded  persons,  intending  to  disturb  the  public  peace,  did 
liberate  and  set  free  their  slaves,  notwithstanding  the  same  was  ex- 
pressly contrary  to  the  laws  of  this  state."  Acts  of  1779,  Ch.  12, 
Sec.  1. 

4»Acts  of  1779,  Ch.  12,  Sec.  2. 

49Ibid.,  Sec.  3. 

™Acts  of  1788,  Ch.  20,  Sec.  1. 


18  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

8.  Suffrage:  It  does  not  appear  that  the  slave  ever  pos- 
sessed the  right  of  suffrage.  The  free  negro,  however, 
voted  throughout  the  period  of  colonial  history  in  North 
Carolina.  The  Declaration  of  Rights  of  North  Carolina, 
adopted  December  17,  1776,  gave  the  franchise  to  "all  free- 
men/'51 The  Constitution  of  the  State,  adopted  the  next 
day,  gave  the  franchise  to  "all  freemen"  with  certain  qual- 
ifications as  to  age,  residence,  property,  and  taxes.52  This 
constitution  remained  in  force  until  1835,  during  which  time 
the  free  negro  voted  in  North  Carolina. 

B.      RESTRICTIONS — 

1.  Marriage:    The  slave  never  acquired  legal  marriage. 
It  was  generally  held  that  the  slave  regarded  marriage 
lightly,  and  that,  therefore,  the  separation  of  husband  and 
wife  was  not  a  serious  matter.     This  philosophy  was  largely 
true,  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  fitted  into  the  economics  of 
slavery  very  advantageously. 

It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  the  above  that  the  slave  did 
not  have  formal  marriage.  He  was  usually  married  with 
considerable  ceremony  by  either  his  own .  minister  or  a 
white  clergyman.  Special  preparation  was  generally  made 
for  the  wedding,  which  frequently  took  place  in  the  dining- 
room  of  the  master's  mansion.  It  may  well  be  contended 
that  this  religious  sanction  was  more  sacred  to  the  slave, 
who  was  of  a  very  religious  nature,  and,  therefore,  more 
binding  than  a  civil  marriage  would  have  been. 

Slaves  were  forbidden  to  intermarry  with  free  negroes  or 
mulattoes,  except  by  the  written  permission  of  the  master, 
attested  by  two  justices  of  the  peace.53  Marriage  of  ne- 
groes, bond  or  free,  with  white  persons  was  prohibited.54 
The  white  person  of  such  a  marriage,  and  the  minister  who 
performed  the  marriage  rite,  were  fined  fifty  pounds  each.55 

2.  Social  and  Economic  Relations:  The  slave's  relations 

51Declaration  of  Rights  of  North  Carolina,  Sec.  6. 
^Constitution  of  1776  of  N.  C.,  Sees.  7,  8,  and  9. 
53Acts  of  1787,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  3. 
s4Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  1,  Sec.  13. 
Sec.  14. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  19 

with  the  outside  world  were  carefully  guarded  because  they 
might  lead  to  run-aways,  marriages,  or  insurrections.  No 
free  negro  or  mulatto  was  permitted  to  entertain  a  slave  in 
his  home  "during  the  Sabbath,  or  in  the  night  between  sun- 
set and  sunrise."56  The  penalty  for  violating  this  act  was 
twenty  shillings  for  the  first  offense,  and  forty  shillings!  for 
each  succeeding  offense.  If  the  offender  could  not  pay  his 
fine,  he  was  forced  to  work  it  out.  A  free  negro  or  mulatto 
was  prohibited  from  marrying  or  cohabiting  with  a  slave 
unless  the  master's  consent,  attested  by  two  justices,  was 
obtained.57  The  free  negro  or  mulatto,  and  not  the  slave, 
was  fined,  for  violation  of  this  act,  ten  pounds  or  one  year's 
service  for  the  master.  No  master  of  a  vessel  was  permitted 
to  entertain  a  slave  on  board,  who  did  not  hold  a  pass  from 
his  master  or  a  justice  of  the  peace.58  Such  harboring  of  a 
slave  indicated  either  an  illicit  trade  relation,  or  an  intention 
of  stealing  the  slave.  For  violation  of  this  act,  the  master 
of  the  vessel  was  fined  five  pounds  for  the  first,  and  ten 
pounds  for  each  succeeding,  offense. 

Traffic  with  slaves  was  a  very  difficult  matter  to  control. 
At  first,  a  person  trading  with  a  slave  was  required  to  pay 
treble  for  the  article  purchased,  and  six  pounds  proclama- 
tion money.59  Finally,  traffic  with  slaves  was  permitted 
only  on  the  basis  of  a  written  permission  from  the  master, 
describing  the  article  for  sale.  A  person  convicted  for  vio- 
lation of  this  law  was  fined  ten  pounds,  and  the  slave  re- 
ceived not  exceeding  thirty-nine  lashes.60  If  such  a  person 
did  not  have  sufficient  property  to  satisfy  the  fine,  he  was 
committed  to  jail.  Traffic  with  slaves  became  more  dif- 
ficult to  regulate  as  the  slavery  system  expanded. 

The  slave  was  not  permitted  to  engage  his  services  to 
anyone,  nor  could  the  master  hire  him  out.  For  violation  of 
this  regulation,  the  slave  might  be  taken  in  charge  by  a 
magistrate  or  free-holder  and  set  to  work  for  the  county, 


\ 


of  1787,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  2. 
"Ibid.,  Sec.  3. 
ssibid.,  Ch.  1,  Sec.  1.' 
59Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  14. 

of  1788,  Ch.  7,  Sees.  1-2. 


20  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

for  the  benefit  of  the  poor,  for  a  period  not  exceeding  twenty 
days;  "any  law,  usage  or  custom  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing."61 

It  is  noticed  that  these  restrictions  pertained  primarily 
to  the  relations  of  the  slaves  with  free  negroes,  Indians, 
traders,  and  poor  whites,  who  were  as  a  rule  more  or  less  in- 
clined to  disturb  the  order  of  the  plantation.  Their  associa- 
tion with  the  whites  in  the  home  and  at  church  was  a  mat- 
ter of  unwritten  law.  The  domestic  servants  were  more 
intimately  associated  with  the  whites  and  were  frequently 
cultured.62  There  was  very  little  effort  on  the  part  of  the 
masters,  in  the  early  stages  of  the  development  of  slavery, 
to  teach  or  christianize  the  slaves.  Many  of  them,  how- 
ever, learned  to  read,  and  joined  churches,  but  they  were  not 
permitted  to  have  separate  church  organizations.63 

3.  The  Runaway:  The  runaway  was  one  of  the  most 
difficult  problems  of  slave  government.  The  wild  life  of  the 
slave  in  Africa,  and  the  hardships  of  frontier  American  slav- 
ery naturally  created  a  disposition  in  the  slave  to  run  away 
from  his  master's  plantation.  Organized  bands  of  slave- 
stealers,  poor  whites,  and  free  negroes  constantly  took  ad- 
vantage of  this  attitude  of  the  slave.  This  was  one  method 
by  which  the  slave  could,  at  least  temporarily,  break  the 
bonds  of  slavery  ;  and  he  did  not  always  find  life  more  severe 
in  the  camp  than  on  the  plantation. 

Runaways,  aside  from  the  economic  loss  to  the  slave- 
owners involved,  might  congregate  and  start  an  insurrec- 
tion. Any  outside  contact  made  possible  conspiracies,  and 
created  a  real  danger  to  the  community.  It  was,  therefore, 
a  heavy  fine  for  anyone  to  harbor  a  slave  ;  and  it  was  the 
duty  of  all  citizens  to  arrest  runaways.64  The  law  against 
the  aiding  and  harboring  of  runaways  was  made  more 
severe  by  increasing  the  fine  for  its  violation.  Finally,  to 


of  1777,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  5. 
62Brickell,  John,  Natural  History  of  North  Carolina,  272. 
63Acts  of  1715,  Ch.  46,  Sec.  18. 
64Ibid.,  Sees.  6-8. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  21 

promote  the  escape  of  a  slave  from  the  colony  became  a 
felony  and  might  involve  the  loss  of  life.05 

This  law  also  gave  to  the  justices  of  the  peace  the  power, 
by  proclamation,  to  outlaw  any  runaway  who  was  in  hiding, 
committing  injuries  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  community. 
It  was  then  lawful  for  any  one  to  kill  such  a  slave.66  Any 
runaway  who  was  caught  was  forced  to  wear  a  yoke  around 
his  neck  until  he  gave  sufficient  evidence  of  good  behavior.67 

Sheriffs  and  constables  were  strictly  charged  with  the  safe 
keeping  of  all  runaways  who  were  committed  to  their  care. 
If  they  negligently  or  wilfully  permitted  any  to  escape, 
they  were  liable  for  damages  to  the  master  at  common  law 
with  costs.68  To  encourage  the  police  officials  to  execute  the 
law,  they  were  exempted  from  the  payment  of  all  public, 
county,  and  parish  levies  for  their  own  persons.  The 
keepers  of  ferries  were  required  to  give  immediate  passage 
to  officers  charged  with  conducting  runaways.69 

No  feature  of  the  slave  code  shows  more  progressively  the 
attitude  of  the  whites  toward  the  negro  than  the  law  on 
runaways.  As  the  slaves  developed  the  means  for  evading 
the  law,  it  was  made  increasingly  rigid.  White  men  could 
be  sold  into  temporary  servitude  to  pay  fines  for  persuading 
the  slave  to  run  away.70  Anyone  convicted  for  attempting 
to  steal  and  convey  a  slave  out  of  the  colony  was  required 
to  pay  the  owner  twenty-five  pounds.  If  he  could  not  pay 
this  fine  he  was  forced  to  serve  the  master  for  five  years.71 
The  idea  in  these  laws  is  not  necessarily  harshness  to  the 
slave,  but  rather  the  security  of  the  bondage  of  the  slave. 


65Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sees.  25-< 
6«Ibid.,  Sec.  43. 
6-Ibid.,  Sec.  46. 
esBrickell,  Op.  Cit.,  270. 
69Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  36. 
"Ibid.,  Sec.  37. 
"Ibid.,  Sec.  25. 


22  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

II.      THE  STATUS  OF  THE  NEGRO  IN  THE  STATE  OF  FRANKLIN 
FROM  1785  TO  1788 

The  State  of  Franklin72  was  included  in  the  western  part 
of  North  Carolina,  which  later  became  the  Southwest  Terri- 
tory and  the  State  of  Tennessee.  The  independent  action 
of  its  people  is  significant,  therefore,  not  only  as  an  expres- 
sion of  their  own  position  on  slavery,  but  also  as  a  prophecy 
of  the  attitude  of  the  state  of  Tennessee. 

The  constitution  proposed  by  the  Greenville  Convention, 
November  14,  1785,  established  a  liberal  suffrage.73  Sec- 
tion 4  of  thj$  constitution  states  that  "Every  free  male 
inhabitant  in  this  state  six  months  immediately  preceding 
the  day  of  election,  shall  participate  in  electing  all  officers 
chosen  by  the  people,  in  the  county  where -he  resides."7* 
The  Declaration  of  Rights  uses  the  terms  "freeman,"  "the 
people,"  and  "every  man,"  synonomously.  There  was  no 
property  or  religious  qualification  for  the  suffrage.  The 
slave,  by  emancipation,  would  have  voted  under  this  con- 
stitution on  the  same  basis  as  other  citizens.  This  consti- 
tution was  finally  rejected  and  that  of  North  Carolina  with 
few  changes  was  adopted.75  The  above  proposal  is  inter- 
esting as  a  typical  frontier  attitude  on  the  suffrage  question. 

North  Carolina  never  recognized  the  independence  of  the 
Franklin  State.  There  were  two  factions  in  North  Caro- 
lina politics  on  this  question.76  One  of  these,  led  by  John 
Sevier,  the  Governor  of  Franklin,  advocated  independence ; 
and  the  other,  led  by  John  Tipton,  demanded  the  downfall 
of  Franklin.  The  Tipton  faction  won,  and  the  Franklin 
State  came  to  an  end  in  1788. 


72Earlier  historians  used  the  name  Frankland  (the  land  of  the 
free),  but  letters  from  officials  of  the  state  indicate  that  it  was  named 
after  Benjamin  Franklin.  See  footnote  p.  263,  Vol.  I,  McMaster, 
John  B.,  History  of  the  United  States. 

T3A  copy  of  this  constitution  is  now  in  the  State  Archives. 

74Ramsey,  J.  G.  M.,  Annals  of  Tennessee,  327. 

"American  Historical  Magazine,  I,  63. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  23 


III.      THE  STATUS  OF  THE  NEGRO  IN  THE  SOUTHWEST  TERRI- 
TORY FROM  1790  TO  1796 

The  western  part  of  North  Carolina  continued  to  demand 
a  separate  political  existence,  and  in  February,  1790,  it  was 
ceded  to  the  National  Government  by  North  Carolina.  The 
Act  of  Cession  provided  that  "the  laws  in  force  and  in  use 
in  the  State  of  North  Carolina  at  this  time,  shall  be  and 
continue  in  full  force  within  the  territory  hereby  ceded 
until  the  same  shall  be  repealed  or  otherwise  altered  by  the 
legislative  authority  of  the  said  territory" ;  and  also,  "that 
no  regulations  made  or  to  be  made  by  congress  shall  tend  to 
emancipate  slaves."77  The  cession  was  accepted  by  Con- 
gress April  2,  1790,  on  the  above  condition;78  and  when 
Congress,  on  May  26,  1790,  organized  the  government  for 
the  Southwest  Territory,  it  mentioned  the  conditions  laid 
down  in  the  Act  of  Cession.79 

The  provisions  of  the  Act  of  Cession  show  how  slavery, 
as  it  had  developed  in  North  Carolina  by  1790,  was  trans- 
planted and  legalized  in  the  territory  that  became  Tennessee 
in  1796.  There  is  no  recorded  protest  on  the  part  of  the 
people  of  the  territory.  The  contract  between  the  National 
Government,  North  Carolina,  and  the  Southwest  Territory, 
shows  that  the  economic  importance  of  slavery  was  already 
recognized. 


76Phelan,  James,  History  of  Tennessee,  299.  • 

77Scott,  I,  437. 

"I  Stat.  U.  S.,  106;  Scott,  I,  439. 

79This  act  states  that  the  territory  "for  the  purposes  of  temporary 
government,  shall  be  one  district,  the  inhabitants  of  which  shall  enjoy 
all  privileges,  benefits,  and  advantages  set  forth ^in  the  Ordinance  of 
the  late  Congress  for  the  government  of  the  Territory  of  the  United 
States  northwest  of  the  River  Ohio,  and  that  the  government  of  the 
said  Territory  shall  be  similar  to  that  which  is  now  exercised  in  the 
Territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio;  except  so  far  as  it  is  otherwise 
provided  in  the  conditions  expressed  in  an  Act  of  Congress  of  the 
present  session,  entitled,  'An  Act  to  Accept  a  Cession  of  Western 
Territory/"  Hurd,  John  Cadman,  Law  of  Freedom  and  Bondage, 
II,  90. 


24  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

The  legislation  of  the  Territory  on  slavery  consists  of  one 
act,  relating  to  the  negro's  participation  in  court  procedure. 
Negroes,  whether  bond  or  free,  were  permitted  to  be  wit- 
nesses for  and  against  each  other,  but  denied  this  privilege 
in  cases  to  which  a  white  man  was  a 'party.  Persons  of 
mixed  blood,  descended  from  negroes  or  Indians,  inclusive 
of  the  third  generation,  suffered  a  similar  restriction.  No 
person  of  mixed  blood  to  any  degree  whatever,  who  had 
been  held  in  slavery,  could  be  a  witness  against  a  white 
person  within  twelve  months  of  his  liberation.80 

This  preliminary  study  suggests  the  general  lines  along 
which  the  institution  of  slavery  developed  in  the  succeeding 
decades.  The  social  and  religious  phases  of  the  negro's  life 
were  given  less  attention  than  the  economic  and  legal.  His 
common  law  status  was  constantly  changing  to  a  statutory 
basis.  He  was  exchanging  the  status  of  a  servant  at  com- 
mon law  for  that  of  a  mere  chattel  at  statute  law.  His 
place  in  judicial  procedure  was  determined.  It  was  in  this 
connection  that  racial  prejudice  made  its  appearance.  The 
foundation  for  a  comprehensive  patrol  system  was  estab- 
lished. The  state  asserted  its  right  to  limit  manumission. 
Free  negroes  had  not  become  sufficiently  numerous  by  1796 
to  call  for  the  serious  consideration  that  they  later  received. 
Consequently,  there  was  a  relatively  small  amount  of  legis- 
lation concerning  them  prior  to  this  date.  Some  restric- 
tions, however,  were  made  on  their  relations  with  the  slave 
and  on  the  process  of  manumission.  On  the  whole,  it  may 
be  concluded  that  there  had  been  laid  a  fairly  secure  foun- 
dation, for  the  status  of  both  the  slave  and  the  free  negro, 
which  future  events  only  modified. 

8°Acts  of  the  Southwest  Territory  for  1794,  Ch.  I,  Sec.  32.  See 
also  Scott,  I,  471;  and  Meigs  and  Cooper's  Code  of  1858,  Sees.  3808- 
3809. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  LEGAL  STATUS  OF  THE  SLAVE  IN  TENNESSEE 

Tennessee  inherited  from  North  Carolina  a  liberal  policy 
toward  the  slave,  a  policy  which  was  fittingly  expressed  by 
Chief  Justice  Taylor  in  the  following  words : 

It  would  be  a  subject  of  regret  to  every  thinking 
person,  if  courts  of  Justice  were  restrained,  by  any 
austere  rule  of  judicature,  from  keeping  pace  with 
the  march  of  benignant  policy  and  provident  hu- 
manity, which  for  many  years  has  characterized 
every  legislative  act  relative  to  the  protection  of 
slaves,  and  which  Christianity,  by  the  mild  dif- 
fusion of  its  light  and  influence,  has  contributed  to 
promote.1 

It  will  be  seen  throughout  the  study  of  the  slave  code  that 
the  slave  in  Tennessee  enjoyed  a  privileged  status,  that  he 
was  more  than  a  mere  chattel,  and  that  his  disabilities, 
characteristic  of  slavery  in  many  of  the  states,  were  con- 
siderably modified. 

I.    THE  PRIVILEGES  OF  SLAVES — 

A.  Hunting.  At  the  request  of  the  master,  the  county 
courts  permitted  one  slave  on  each  plantation  to  hunt  with 
a  gun  during  the  cultivation  or  harvesting  of  crops.  They 
issued  to  such  a  slave  a  certificate,  describing  him  and  grant- 
ing this  privilege,  and  requested  him,  when  he  hunted,  to 
carry  it  with  him  to  prevent  his  arrest  for  being  unlawfully 
armed.  The  master  was  financially  responsible  for  any 
damage  done  by  such  a  slave.2  The  courts  more  fully 
granted  authority  to  the  slaves  to  hunt  with  dogs,  and  were 
limited  in  such  matters  only  by  the  degree  of  responsibility 
that  the  master  would  assume.  Slaves  were  whipped  not 
exceeding  thirty  lashes  if  they  were  caught  hunting  unlaw- 


iState  v.  Hale,  2  Hawks,  585   (1823). 

2Meigs  and  Cooper's  Code  of  1858,  Sees.  2603-9. 


26  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

fully.3  The  slave  was  not  allowed  to  hunt  at  night  by  fire- 
light with  a  gun.  If  he  was  duly  convicted,  before  a  justice 
of  the  peace,  of  violating  this  restriction,  his  owner  was 
fined  fifteen  dollars.4 

B.  Travel.     The   travel  of  slaves  in  their  immediate 
community  was  regulated  by  a  system  of  passes  issued  by 
the  masters  or  their  representatives.     No  slave,  except  a 
domestic  servant,  was  supposed  to  leave  his^  master's  prem- 
ises without  a  pass,  explaining  the  cause  of  his  absence.5 
No  stage  driver,  captain  of  a  steamboat,  or  railroad  con- 
ductor could  receive  a  slave   passenger  for  an   extended 
journey  unless  he  produced  a  pass  from  a  county  clerk, 
giving  instructions  for  such  a  journey  and  a  description 
of  the  slave.6     One  could  be  imprisoned  six  months  and 
fined  five  hundred  dollars  for  violating  this  regulation,  unless 
he  could  prove  that  the  transportation  of  the  slave  took 
place  without  his  knowledge.     The  slave  in  such  instances, 
if  he  was  discovered,  was  arrested,  placed  in  the  nearest 
jail,  and  advertised  as  a  runaway.7 

C.  Suits  for  Freedom. 

1.  Of  the  Action.  The  proper  action  at  law  to  be  taken 
by  a  slave  in  a  suit  for  his  freedom  was  trespass,  false  im- 
prisonment, or  assault  and  battery.8  Judge  Catron,  in  the 
case  of  Harris  v.  Clarissa,  held  that  a  female  and  her  chil- 
dren, being  held  in  slavery,  could  institute  joint  action  to 
establish  their  freedom.9  The  defendant  would  in  such  suits 
claim  that  the  plaintiff  was  his  slave.  In  such  cases,  the 
slave  did  not  sue  the  master,  the  court  merely  tried  the 
fact,  whether  the  plaintiff  was  a  slave.10 


.  &  C.,  Sees.  2610-11. 

Sees.  2612-13. 
-Ibid.,  Sec.  2603. 
6  Acts  of  1833,  Ch.  3,  Sec.  1. 
,  ^M.  &  C.,  Sees.  2666-68. 
8Stewart  v.  Miller,  1  Meigs,  174  (1838). 

9Harris  v.   Clarissa,  6  Yerger,  227    (1834)  ;   Blackmore  v.   Negro 
Phill,  7  Yerger,  452  (1835). 

10Matilda  v.  Crenshaw,  4  Yerger,  299   (1833). 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  27 

2.  Of  the  Evidence.  In  a  suit  for  freedom,  the  onus 
probandi  rested  upon  the  plaintiff.  What  evidence  was 
admitted?  How  could  a  slave  prove  that  he  was  free  if 
there  were  no  court  records  to  show  that  the  State  had  as- 
sented to  his  freedom?  How  could  he  prove  that  he  was 
descended  from  free  parents  and  that  he  was  being  held  in 
false  imprisonment?  Judge  Crabb,  in  the  case  of  Vaughan 
v.  Phebe,  answered  these  questions  by  saying  that  "He  may, 
perhaps,  procure  testimony  that  he,  or  some  ancestor,  was 
for  some  time  in  the  enjoyment  of  freedom;  that  he  has 
acted  as  a  freeman ;  that  he  has  been  received  as  a  freeman 
into  society;  and  very  soon  will  find  himself  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  increasing  in  proportion  to  the  distance  he  has 
to  travel  into  time  past,  for  want  of  other  evidence,  to  use 
hearsay;  that  he,  or  his  ancestor  was  commonly  called  a 
freeman,  or  commonly  reputed  a  freeman,  or,  in  other 
words,  evidence  of  common  reputation."11 

The  courts  of  Tennessee  in  their  consideration  of  suits  by 
slaves  for  their  freedom  gave  unmistakable  evidence  that 
they  realized  the  seriousness  of  adding  another  negro  voter 
to  the  body  politic.  Free  negroes  voted  in  Tennessee  until 
1834.11  This  made  the  matter  of  manumitting  a  slave  have 
far  reaching  consequences.  Judge  Crabb,  in  Vaughan  v. 
Phebe,  pointed  out  very  forcibly  the  results  to  the  slave  and 
society  that  attended  the  freeing  of  a  slave.13 


^Vaughan  v.  Phebe,  I  Martin  &  Yerger,  1   (1827). 

12"Freedom  in  this  country,"  said  Judge  Crabb,  "is  not  a  mere 
name — a  cheat  with  which  the  few  gull  the  many.  It  is  something 
substantial.  It  embraces  within  its  comprehensive  grasp,  all  the  use- 
ful rights  of  man;  and  it  makes  itself  manifest  by  many  privileges, 
immunities,  external  public  acts.  It  is  not  confined  in  its  operation 
to  privacy,  or  to  the  domestic  circle.  It  walks  abroad  in  its  opera- 
tions— transfers  its  possessor,  even  if  he  be  black,  or  mulatto,  or 
copper  colored,  from  the  kitchen  and  the  cotton  field,  to  the  court 
house  and  the  election  ground,  makes  him  talk  of  Magna  Charta  and 
the  constitution;  in  some  states  renders  him  a  politician — brings 
him  acquainted  with  the  leading  citizens — busies  himself  in  the  po- 
litical canvass  for  office — takes  him  to  the  ballot  box;  and,  above  all, 
secures  to  him  the  enviable  and  inestimable  privilege  of  trial  by  jury. 


28  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

3.  Of  the  Damages.     A  negro  held  in  slavery  beyond  the 
agreed  time  of  emancipation  could  maintain  an  action  of 
trespass  for  his  wages,  after  he  had  established  his  freedom. 
He  could  recover  wages  for  the  time  the  suit  for  freedom 
was  pending  and  also  the  cost  of  the  suit.13 

4.  Of  the  Judgment.     The  judgment  in  favor  of  the  free- 
dom of  a  maternal  ancestor  of  a  plaintiff  was  received  by 
the  Tennessee  courts  as  evidence  in  a  suit  for  freedom  to 
show  the  basis  of  the  right  claimed.     Judge  Crabb,  in  ad- 
mitting the  records  of  a  previous  trial  as  evidence,  said: 
"We  consider  the  solemn  verdict  of  a  jury,  with  proofs  pro- 
duced to  them  many  years  ago,  and  with  the  judgment  of 
the  court  upon  it,  fully  as  good  evidence,  to  say  the  least  of 
it,  of  what  was  considered  the  truth  in  those  days."14 

It  sometimes  happened  that  defendants  in  suits  for  free- 
dom would  send  the  plaintiff  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court  in  which  the  suit  had  been  instituted.  To  prevent 
this,  an  act  was  passed,  requiring  defendant  to  give  security 
that  the  plaintiff  would  not  be  removed  from  the  limits  of 
the  county.15  "The  powers  of  a  court  of  chancery  were 
more  than  those  of  a  court  of  law,"  said  Judge  Green  in  the 
case  of  Sylvia  and  Phillis  v.  Covey,  holding  that  a  suit  for 
freedom  in  chancery  could  be  maintained  regardless  of  the 
change  of  venue.16 

D.  Trial  of  Slaves.  The  most  ordinary  court  for  the 
trial  of  slaves  was  composed  of  justices  and  freeholders, 
who  were  slaveholders.17  Their  crimes  were  usually  sepa- 


Can  it  be  said,  that  there  is  nothing  of  a  public  nature  in  a  right,  that 
thus,  from  its  necessary  operation,  places  a  man  in  many  respects  on 
an  equality  with  the  richest,  and  the  greatest,  and  the  best  in  the  land, 
and  brings  him  in  contact  with  the  whole  community?"  Vaughan  v. 
Phebe,  1  Martin  &  Yerger,  1  (1827). 

13Matilda  v.  Crenshaw,  1   (1827). 

14Vaughan  v.  Phebe,  1  Martin  &  Yerger,  1    (1827). 

"Acts  of  1817,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  1. 

16Sylvia  and  Phillis  v.  Covey,  4  Yerger,  27   (1883). 

of  1715,  Ch.  19,  Sec.  9;  Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  48. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  29 

rated  into  corporal  and  capital,  and  a  single  justice  was 
generally  permitted  to  try  the  misdemeanors.18 

The  first  effort  at  legislation  in  Tennessee  on  the  trial 
of  slaves  was  an  attempt  in  1799  to  establish  trial  by  jury 
of  twelve  freeholders,  unrelated  to  the  owner  of  the  slave 
by  either  affinity  or  consanguinity.  Free  legal  counsel  for 
slaves  whose  masters  were  unknown  or  outside  of  the  state 
was  proposed.  This  measure  passed  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, but  was  defeated  by  the  Senate  on  the  third 
reading.19  This  failure  only  delayed  the  accomplishment 
of  the  object  of  this  bill. 

Three  justices  and  nine  freeholders,  who  were  slave- 
holders, were  in  1815  empowered  to  try  slaves  for  all  of- 
fences.20 In  1819,  the  freeholders  were  increased  to 
twelve21.  By  1825,  the  jury  might  contain  non-slave- 
holders, if  twelve  slaveholders  could  not  be  secured.  Their 
verdict,  however,  was  invalid,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the 
non-slaveholders  divided  the  jury.22  The  owner  by  this  act 
had  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  circuit  court  in  case  of  con- 
viction, by  giving  bond  in  the  sum  of  twice  the  value  of  the 
slave  for  his  appearance  at  the  next  term  of  court.  In 
1831,  right  of  appeal  was  limited  to  capital  cases.23 

By  act  of  1835,  the  trial  of  slaves  was  completely  recon- 
structed. Special  courts  for  the  trial  of  slaves  were  abol- 
ished. Right  of  appeal  from  justice's  court  was  established 
in  all  cases.  The  circuit  court  was  given  exclusive  original 
jurisdiction  of  all  offences  punishable  by  death.  No  slave 
was  to  be  tried  by  a  jury  until  an  indictment  had  been 
found  against  him  by  a  grand  jury  in  the  regular  way. 
The  State  provided  counsel  for  the  slave  if  the  master  did 
not.  Section  11  of  this  measure  reads:  "All  persons  who 
would  be  competent  jurors  to  serve  on  the  trial  of  a  free 
person,  shall  be  competent  jurors  on  the  trial  of  any  slave 


18Acts  of  1783,  Ch.  14,  Sec.  2. 
19Manuscripts  in  State  Archives. 
20 Acts  of  1815,  Ch.  138,  Sec.  1. 
21Acts  of  1819,  Ch.  35,  Sec.  2. 
22Acts  of  1825,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  1. 
23Acts  off  1831,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  6. 


30  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

or  .slaves."24  By  this  piece  of  humanitarian  legislation, 
Tennessee  became  one  of  the  five  slave  states  which  granted 
the  slave  trial  by  jury.25 

By  this  act,  the  attorney  employed  by  the  State  for  the 
slave  could  sue  the  master  for  his  fee.  This  provision  was 
repealed  in  1838,  and  the  county  became  liable  for  the  cost 
of  the  suit,  unless  the  prosecution  appeared  frivolous  or 
malicious,  in  which  case  the  prosecutor  paid  the  cost  of 
trial.26 

Toward  the  close  of  the  second  quarter  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  there  were  some  changes  made  in  the  legal  pro- 
cedure adopted  in  1835.  The  right  of  appeal  in  all  cases 
from  the  justice's  court  was  restored  to  the  master  by  an 
act  of  1848. 2T  The  state  in  1858  reverted  to  a  former 
method  of  indictment  of  the  slave.28  Five  creditable  per- 
sons could  file  an  accusation  of  insurrection  or  conspiracy 
to  kill  against  a  slave,  and  the  judge  of  the  circuit  court 
could  empower  the  jury  to  try  the  slave  without  waiting  for 
a  regular  term  of  the  court.  These  changes  in  the  slave's 
legal  status  were  the  delayed  response  of  legal  institutions 
to  the  movements  in  politics,  economics,  and  religion  in 
vogue  in  the  early  thirties.29 

II.    DISABILITIES  OF  SLAVES. — 

A.  To  make  a  Contract.  The  slave  could  not  make  a 
legal  contract  except  for  his  freedom  or  with  his  master's 
consent.  The  slave  in  such  contracts  was  regarded  as  the 
agent  of  the  master.30  The  courts,  however,  would  enforce 
a  contract  made  by  a  slave  with  his  masters  for  his  freedom. 
In  the  case  of  Porter  v.  Blackmore,  the  supreme  court  of 
the  state  held  that  such  a  contract  established  a  vested  right 

2*Acts  of  1835,  Ch.  9,  Sees.  9-11. 

"Kentucky,  Maryland,  Georgia,  and  Alabama  were  the  other  four. 
See  footnote,  Wheeler,  Op.  Cit.,  213. 
2«Acts  of  1838,  Ch.  133,  Sec.  1. 
27 Acts  of  1848,  Ch.  50,  Sec.  1. 
ssActs  off  1858,  Ch.  86,  Sees.  1-2. 
29Infra,  pp.  59-79;  102-152. 
30Wheeler,  Op.  Cit.,  190. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  31 

to  freedom,  and  that  "no  one  but  the  State  can  take  ad- 
vantage of  it,  not  even  the  owner  or  master,  after  the  right 
is  once  vested.  A  court  of  chancery,  if  the  right  is  once 
vested,  will  interpose  to  prevent  its  defeat."31 

B.  To  Take  Property  by  Devise,  Descent,  or  Purchase. 
The  slave  was  regarded  as  personal  property  in  Tennessee 
and  what  he  owned  belonged  to  the  master.32  He  could  not 
receive  property  by  inheritance  or  donation,  nor  buy,  sell, 
or  dispose  of  anything,  unless  his  master  consented.33 
Washington  Turner,  a  free  negro,  died  in  1853,  leaving  his 
estate  to  his  wife  and  children.  The  children  were  the 
issue  of  a  slave  mother.  Judge  McKinney,  in  a  case  involv- 
ing the  will  of  Turner,  said :  "It  is  clear  that  the  children 
of  the  testator  being  slaves,  with  no  rights  of  freedom,  pres- 
ent or  prospective,  are  incapable  in  law  of  taking  any  ben- 
efit under  the  will."34  A  slave  while  in  a  state  of  inchoate 
freedom  could  lay  claim  to  either  personal  or  real  property.35 
Judge  Catron  maintained  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  the 
liberal  slave  code  of  the  State  not  ta  consider  a  slave's 
rights  to  property  in  connection  with  a  claim  to  freedom.36 

31Porter  v.  Blackmore,  2  Caldwell,  555  (1865)  ;  see  also  5  Caldwell, 
209;  3  Heiskell,  662;  and  10  Lea,  663. 

32Judge  Catron  held  that  "what  is  earned  by  the  slave  belongs  to 
the  master  by  the  common  law,  the  civil  law,  and  the  recognized  rules 
of  property  in  the  slave-holding  states  of  this  Union."     University  v. 
Cambreling,  Yerget,  86   (1834). 
-33Acts  of  1803,  Ch.  13,  Sec.  4. 

34Turner  v.  Fisher,  4  Sneed,  210  (1856). 

35Judge  Green  held  that  "A  slave  is  not  in  the!  condition  of  a  horse 
or  an  ox.  His  liberty  is  restrained,  it  is  true,  and  his  owner  controls 
his  actions  and  claims  his  services.  But  he  is  made  of  the  image  of 
the  Creator.  He  has  mental  capacities,  and  an  immortal  principle  in 
his  nature,  that  constitutes  him  equal  to  his  owner  but  for  the  acci- 
dental position  in  which  fortune  has  placed  him.  The  owner  has 
acquired  conventional  rights  to  him,  but  the  laws  under  which  he  is 
held  as  a  slave  have  not  and  can  not  extinguish  his  high-born  nature 
nor  deprive  him  of  many  rights  which  are  inherent  in  man.  Thus 
while  he  is  a  slave,  he  can  make  a  contract  for  his  freedom,  and  by 
the  same  will  he  can  take  personal  or  real  estate."  Ford  v.  Ford, 
7  Humphrey,  95-96  (1846).  Cf.  Miller  v.  Miller,  5  Heiskell,  734 
1871). 

™Stephenson  v.  Harrison,  3  Head,  733   (1859). 


32  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

C.  To  Be  a  Witness.     The  slave  never  acquired  the  right 
of  being  a  witness  against  a  white  man.37     The  denial  of 
this  right  was  based  on  the  slave's  light  regard  for  his 
word,  his  ignorance,  and  racial  prejudice.     His  paganism 
was  also  a  factor.38 

The  slave  gradually  acquired  a  stronger  position  in  cases 
in  which  the  white  man  was  not  a  party.  By  1784,  he  could 
be  a  witness  in  cases  where  other  slaves  were  being  tried.89 
By  1813,  he  could  testify  against  free  persons  of  color  born 
in  slavery.40  By  1839,  his  testimony  was  permitted  in  cases 
where  persons  of  mixed  blood  were  tried.41  This  increased 
capacity  of  the  slave  as  a  witness  resulted  from  efforts  to 
restrict  his  relations  with  free  negroes  and  mulattoes. 
Illicit  trade  relations  were  difficult  to  prevent,  especially  in 
liquors. 

D.  To  Be  a  Party  in  a  Suit.     There  were  only  two  in- 
stances in  which  a  slave  could  be  a  party  to  a  suit.     He 
could  sue  for  his  freedom  and  for  property  interests  which 
a  grant  of  freedom-  involved.42     In  Stephenson  v.  Harrison, 
Judge  Caruthers  held  that  "No  other  suit  but  for  freedom, 
in  which  may  be  embraced  claim  to  property,  can  be  brought 
by  slaves,  while  they  are  such,  except  where  rights  may  be 
endangered,  which  are  connected  with  a  certain  grant  of 
freedom  to  take  effect  in  the  future.     And  this  being  that 
kind  of  case,  the  slaves  have  a  standing  in  court."43     It  is 
observed  that  in  such  cases  the  court  for  the  time  being,  re- 
garded the  slave  as  being  in  a  state  of  inchoate  freedom. 

There  was  no  reason  why  the  slave  needed  to  be  a  party  to 
a  suit.  He  owned  nothing.  He  could  not  recover  any- 
thing. He  could  be  whipped  for  anything  that  he  did.  The 
master  did  not  want  to  kill  him.  If  he  did  not  want  him, 
he  could  sell  him.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  would 


"Wheeler,  Op.  Cit.,  194. 

38Supra,  16. 

39Acts  of  1794,  Ch.'l,  Sec.  32. 

40 Acts  of  1813,  Ch.  135,  Sec.  5. 

*iActe  of  1839,  Ch.  7,  Sec.  1. 

42Wheeler,  Op.  Cit.,  197. 

43Stephenson  v.  Harrison,  3  Head,  733  (1859). 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  33 

have  been  a  mere  mockery  for  the  slave  to  be  a  party  to  a 
suit. 

E.  To  Contract  Matrimony.  There  was  no  process  of 
law  involved  in  the  marriage  of  slaves  with  each  other  or 
their  separation.  Their  marriage  with  mulattoes  or  with 
free  negroes  was  a  matter  of  statutory  regulation.  In  the 
case  of  Andrews  v.  Page,  it  was  held  that  "Slaves  were  not 
married  to  each  other  without  the  consent  of  their  owners, 
as  a  general  rule.  By  the  act  of  1787,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  3,  a  free 
negro  or  mulatto  was  prohibited  from  intermarrying  with 
a  slave,  without  the  consent  of  his  or  her  master,  had  in 
writing."44  When  the  master  for  his  slave  agreed  to  a  mar- 
riage with  a  free  negro  or  mulatto,  it  was  regarded  by  the 
courts  as  a  contract.4"' 

If  a  free  negro  woman  was  married  to  a  slave,  their  chil- 
dren were  free.  The  issue  of  a  free  woman  of  color  fol- 
lowed the  condition  of  their  mother,  and  were  born  free.- 
This  principle  was  carried  so  far  that  when  a  female  slave 
was  to  be  emancipated  by  the  concession  of  the  master  and 
assent  of  the  State,  but  was  to  be  held  subject  to  service  for 
a  definite  time,  and  a  child  was  born  to  her  after  such  eman- 
cipation but  during  such  subjection  to  service,  it  was  held 
that  the  child  was  freeborn. 

While  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  marriage  relation  between 
slaves  was  a  contractual  one  at  law,  it  had  the  sanction  of 
an  unwritten  law  that  the  state  respected.  In  the  case  of 
Andrews  v.  Page,  the  court  held  that  it  was 

"established  beyond  controversy  that  there  were 
circumstances  under  which  the  courts  of  this  State 
recognized  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife  and 
the  ties  of  consanguinity,  as  existing  among  slaves, 
as  well  as  among  free  persons,  and  free  persons  of 
color ;  and  we  hold  that  a  marriage  between  slaves, 
with  the  consent  of  their  owners,  whether  con- 
tracted in  common  law  form  or  celebrated  under 
the  statute,  always  was  a  valid  marriage  in  this 

44Andrews  v.  Page,  3  Heiskell,  665  (1870).  i 

45Haitsell  v.  George,  3  Humphrey,  255  (1842). 


34  University-  of  Texas  Bulletin 

state,  and  that  the  issue  of  such  marriages  were  not 
illegitimate/'46 

III.    RELATION  OF  THE  MASTER  AND  SOCIETY — 

A.     Liabilities  of  the  Master  to  Society. 

1.  For  His  Own  Acts.  The  master  was  responsible  to 
society  for  the  treatment  of  his  slaves.  He  was  required 
to  feed,  clothe,  and  house  them.47  It  was  his  duty  to  furnish 
them  competent  medical  aid.48  If  an  employer  of  a  slave 
was  unable  to  pay  for  medical  attention,  the  master  was 
liable.  He  was  expected  to  superintend  the  trials  of  his 
slaves  to  see  that  they  received  justice.  In  capital  cases, 
he  was  allowed  thirty-five  challenges.49  He  could  give  bail 
for  their  appearance  at  court  and  prosecute  writs  of  error 
for  them.50 

There  is  considerable  evidence  that  the  slaves  of  Ten- 
nessee were  rather  well  treated.  Rev.  William  Dickey, 
writing  from  Bloomingburgh,  Ohio,  July  23,  1845,  stated 
that  the  negroes  were  clean,  well-fed,  and  clothed  and  that 
considerable  attention  was  given  their  minds.51  Judge 


46Andrews  v.  Page,  3  Heiskell,  666  (1870). 

47 Act  of  1753,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  10. 

4«M.  &  C.,  Sees.  2563-64. 

49 Acts  of  1825,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  2. 

soibid.,  Sees.  3-5. 

51Thomas,  T.  Ebenezer,  Anti-Slavery  Correspondence,  71.  The  let- 
ter reads  as  follows:  "Has  the  anti-slavery  cause  injured  the  condi- 
tion of  the  slaves?  Surely  not.  In  my  late  journey  through  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee,  I  did  not  see  one  dirty,  ragged  negro.  The 
squads  of  little  negroes  I  used  to  see  naked  as  the  pigs  and  calves 
with  which  they  gamboled  in  the  same  gfove,  were  now  clad  like 
human  beings  in  shirts  and  pants  or  slips,  and  many  of  them  had 
straw  hats,  such  as  my^  own  little  boys  put  on ;  nor  did  Ij  see,  as  for- 
merly, boys  and  girls  waiting  at  the  table,  in  a  state  of  stark  nudity." 

"I  was  happy  to  acknowledge  that  a  great  change  had  taken  place 
since  I  was  conversant  about  Nashville,  fifty-five  years  ago,  when 
negroes  were  naked  and  ignorant.  I  said  I  was  pleased  to  see  so 
much  attention  paid  to  their  bodies  and  their  minds,  and  I  wished 
that  the  people  of  Tennessee  might  go  ahead  of  the  people  in  Ohio 
in  good  offices  to  the  negro.  God  speed  you,  dear  friends,  in  this 
work." 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  35 

Catron,  in  the  case  of  Loftin  v.  Espy,  refused  to  let  a  family 
of  slaves  be  separated  to  satisfy  a  debt  against  an  estate, 
and,  in  rendering  the  decree,  he  said : 

The  servants  and  slaves  constitute  a  part  of  the 
family,  entitled  to,  and  receiving,  if  they  be  worthy, 
the  affections  of  the  master  to  a  great  extent ;  this 
disposition  towards  this  unfortunate  class  of  peo- 
ple it  is  the  policy  of  the  country  to  promote  and 
encourage ;  without  it,  good  conduct  on  the  part  of 
the  slave,  and  benevolent  and  humane  treatment 
on  the  part  of  the  master  is  not  to  be  expected . . . 

(Nothing  can  be  more  abhorrent  to  these  poor  peo- 
ple, or  to  the  feelings  of  every  benevolent  indi- 
vidual, than  to  see  a  large  family  of  slaves  sold  at 
sheriff's  sale;  the  infant  children,  father,  and 
mother  to  different  bidders.52 

2.     For  the  Acts  of  His  Slaves. 

a.  For  Contracts  Made  by  the  Slave.     The  law  of 
principal  and  agent,  as  adopted  by  the  common  law,  did  not 
apply  to  master  and  slave  in  all  instances,  but  in  the  ordinary 
domestic  relations  it  was  generally  held  that  the  master 
could  do  business  through  the  agency  of  his  slaves  and  that 
he  was  bound  by  their  acts  in  such  cases.     The  rule  separat- 
ing the  two  types  of  cases  seems  to  have  been  that,  where 
skill  and  mentality  were  requisite  for  the  performance  of 
the  task,  the  law  would  not  imply  a  contract  on  the  part  of 
the  master.53 

b.  For  Negligence  of  the  Slave  Resulting  in  Injury 
to  Others.     The  master  was  not  liable  for  the  negligence  of 
his  slaves  in  the  performance  of  unauthorized  acts,  but  was 
responsible  for  the  faithful  performance  of  their  duties 
when  they  were  acting  as  tradesmen  or  carriers  under  his 
authority. 

c.  For  Torts  and  Crimes  Committed  by  Slaves.    The 
master  was  responsible  for  damage  done  by  slaves  carrying 

52Loftin  v.  Espy,  4  Yerger,  92   (1833). 

53Wheeler,  Op.  Cit.,  225;  University  v.  Cambreling,  6  Yerger,  79 
(1834)  ;  Craig  v.  Leiper,  2  Yerger,  193  (1828) ;  Pinson  and  Hawkins 
v.  Ivey,  1  Yerger,  303  (1830). 


36  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

guns  with  his  permission.54  He  was  subject  to  indictment 
and  fine  at  the  discretion  of  the  court  for  permitting  a  slave 
to  practice  medicine  or  heal  the  sick.55  He  was  liable  for 
at  least  a  fifty-dollar  fine  for  permitting  his  slave  to  sell 
spiritous  liquors.56  He  was  held  responsible  for  the  slave's 
acts  even  if  a  state  of  inchoate  freedom  existed.  "The 
master,"  said  Judge  Green,  "by  failing  to  petition  the  county 
court  and  give  bond  according  to  law,  remains  liable  to  all 
the  penalties  of  the  law  as  though  he  had  never  consented 
to  his  freedom.  In  view  of  the  law,  the  negro  is  not  a  free- 
man until  the  State,  through  the  proper  tribunal,  consents 
to  his  freedom. 

Until  that  is  done  the  master  may  be  indicted  for  per- 
mitting him  to  act  as  a  freeman,  and  is  liable  to  all  the 
other  consequences  that  would  have  existed  if  he  had  not 
consented  to  the  defendant's  freedom."57 

B.  Liabilities  of  Society  to  the  Master  for  Abusing  His 
Slave. 

1.  For  Beating  or  Harboring  Him.  It  was  a  criminal 
offense  for  anyone  to  abuse  wantonly  the  slave  of  another. 
Any  such  person  was  subject  to  indictment  in  the  circuit 
court,  under  the  same  rules  and  subject  to  the  same  penalties 
as  if  the  offense  had  been  committed  against  a  white  per- 
son.58 Enticing  a  slave  to  absent  himself  from  his  owner 
subjected  one  to  a  forfeiture  of  fifty  dollars  to  be  recovered 
as  an  action  of  debt  by  the  owner  of  the  slave.  It  was  a 
fine  of  one  hundred  pounds  to  harbor  a  slave  and  cause  a 
loss  of  service  to  the  master.59  If  a  master  of  a  vessel  en- 
tertained on  board  a  slave  without  a  permit  from  the  owner 
or  a  justice  of  the  Peace,  he  was  liable  to  a  fine  of  $12.50 

5*Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  24,  Sec.  40;  Acts  of  1753,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  2. 

55Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  3. 

56Acts  of  1835,  Ch.  57,  Sec.  2. 

57James  v.  State,  9  Humphrey,  310  (1848). 

^Acts  of  1813,  Ch.  56,  Sec.  1. 

59Acts  of  1779,  Ch.  11,  Sec.  4. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  37 

for  the  first  offense,  and  $25  for  each  succeeding  offense.60 
It  was  finally  made  a  penitentiary  offense  to  harbor  a  slave 
with  intent  to  steal  him  or  carry  him  beyond  the  borders  of 
the  state.61  Also,  one  was  subject  to  imprisonment  for  a 
term  of  not  less  than  three  nor  more  than  ten  years  for/  de- 
liberately harboring  a  runaway.62 

2.  For  Maiming  or  Killing  Him.     Any  person,  wil- 
fully or  maliciously  killing  a  slave,  was  guilty  of  murder 
and  suffered  death  without  benefit  of  clergy.  If  the  slave  did 
not  belong  to  the  offender,  "his  goods,  chattels,  lands  and 
tenements"  could  be  sold  to  pay  for  the  slave.63     Killing  a 
slave  without  malice  was  manslaughter.     In  the  case  of 
Fields  v.  The  State  of  Tennessee,  the  court  said,  "that  law 
which  says  thou  shalt  not  kill,  protects  the  slave ;  and  he  is 
within  its  very  letter.     Law,  reason,  Christianity  and  com- 
mon humanity  all  point  out  one  way."64     No  individual  had 
the  right  to  become  the  avenger  of  the  violated  law.65 

3.  For  Trading  with  Him.     No  one  was  permitted  to 
trade  with  a  slave  unless  he  had  a  permit.     The  slave  was 
permitted  to  sell  articles  of  his  own  manufacture  without  a 
permit.     Any  one  who  violated  this  act  was  subject  to  a 
fine  of  not  less  than  five  nor  more  than  ten  dollars  to  be 
recovered  before  any  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  county  in 
which  the  offense  was  committed.     One-half  of  the  fine  was 


6°Acts  of  1787,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  1. 

eiActs  of  1835,  Ch.  58,  Sec.  1. 

62lbid.,  Ch.  65,  Sec.  2. 

63Acts  of  1799,  Ch.  9,  Sec.  2. 

64Fields  v.  The  State  of  Tennessee,  1  Yerger,  156  (1829). 

65"If  a  slave  commits  a  criminal  offense  while  in  the  services  of 
the  hirer,"  said  Judge  McKinney,  "it  would  be  sufficient  cause  to 
discharge  him.  And  if  the  hirer  desires  to  have  him  punished  for 
such  offense  the  law  has  pointed  out  the  mode,  and  he  has  the  right 
to  pursue  it,  but  he  has  no  right  to  become  himself  the  avenger  of 
the  violated  law,  much  less  to  depute  another  person  in  his  stead. 
And  for  a  battery  committed  on  the  slave  under  such  circumstances, 
the  owner  may  well  maintain  an  action  against  the  wrong-doer,  in 
which  the  jury  would  be  justified  in  giving  exemplary  damages  in  a 
proper  case."  James  v.  Carper,  4  Sneed,  404  (1857). 


38  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

paid  to  the  master  of  the  slave.66  If  the  offender  was  a 
free  person  of  color  born  in  slavery,  the  slave  could  be  a 
witness  in  the  case.67 

4.  For  Using  Improper  Language  Before  Him  or  Per- 
mitting Him  to  Visit  Your  Home.  To  inflame  the  mind  of 
any  slave  or  incite  him  to  insurrection  by  using  improper 
language  in  his  presence  subjected  one,  on  conviction,  to  a 
fine  of  ten  dollars  to  be  recovered  as  an  action  of  debt  be- 
fore any  court  having  jurisdiction.  The  fine  was  equally 
divided  between  the  county  and  the  person  instituting  suit.68 
It  was  equally  a  violation  of  the  law  to  permit  slaves  to 
assemble  at  one's  residence  or  negro  houses.69 

IV.    THE  PATROL  SYSTEM  — 

A.  Searchers.     By  act  of  1753,  searchers  were  appointed 
by  the  county  courts  to  visit  slave  quarters  four  times  a 
year  in  search  of  guns.70     Only  reliable  persons  could  be 
searchers.     By  1779,  they  were  required  to  search  for  guns 
once  a  month.71     These  officers  were  the  beginning  of  the 
patrol  system  in  Tennessee. 

B.  Patrols.     In  1806,  the  searcher^  were  converted  into 
patrols  and  a  very  elaborate  system  of  police  was  devised. 
Captains  of  militia  were  empowered  to  appoint  patrols  for 
the  counties,  determine  their  number  and  the  frequency  of 
their  ridings.72     Commissioners  of  the  towns  w^re  directed 
to  appoint  patrols  for  the  towns,  whether  incorporated  or 
unincorporated.73     In  1817,  justices  of  the  peace  were  given 
the  power  to  suggest  the  appointment  of  patrols  to  captains 
of  militia  in  their  districts.74     In  1831,  they  were  empow- 
ered to  appoint  patrols  for  their  district  in  case  captains  of 


of  1813,  Ch.  135,  Sec.  3. 
«7Ibid.,  Sec.  5. 

esActs  of  1803,  Ch.  13,  Sec.  11. 
69Ibid.,  Sec.  3. 

™Acts  of  1753,  Ch.  VI,  Sec.  4. 
71Acts  of  1779,  Ch.  7,  Sec.  3. 
72Acts  of  1806,  Ch.  32,  Sec.  5. 
"Ibid.,  Sees.  6-7. 
7*Acts  of  1817,  Ch.  184,  Sec.  3. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  39 

militia  neglected  to  do  so.75  In  1856,  masters,  mistresses, 
and  overseers  were  made  patrols  over  their  own  premises.76 

Patrols  were  paid  from  the  county  treasury.  A  tax  was 
levied  on  the  taxable  slaves  for  this  purpose.77  The  patrol 
swore  to  his  account  before  a  justice  of  the  peace,  who  car- 
ried the  account- to  the  county  court,  which  decided  how 
much  the  patrolman  should  receive.78  By  act  of  1856, 
patrols  were  allowed  $1.00  per  night  or  day  for  their  serv- 
ices.79 If  the  masters  or  mistresses  served  as  patrols,  they 
received  nothing  for  their  services.80 

Patrol  service  was  obligatory  upon  all  citizens.  Anyone 
refusing  to  serve  as  a  patrol  was  fined  $5.00  for  each  re- 
fusal.81 A  person  serving  as  a  patrolman  for  three  months 
was  exempted  from  musters,  road- working,  and  jury  service 
for  twelve  months.82  They  were  paid  $5.00  for  every  slave 
they  returned  to  his  master. 

The  powers  and  duties  of  patrols  were  rather  extensive. 
Once  each  month,  they  were  to  search  for  guns  and  other 
weapons  and  turn  such  as  they  found  over  to  the  county 
court  or  return  the  same  to  the  owner.83  They  searched 
all  suspected  places  for  slaves  without  permission  of  the 
owners.  They  could  punish,  with  fifteen  stripes  on  the  bare 
back,  any  negro,  bond  or  free,  that  they  found  away  from 
home,  without  a  pass  from  his  master.84 

The  patrols  sometimes  abused  their  powers.  In  1859, 
the  supreme  court  held  that 

"It  is  of  great  importance  to  society  that  these 
police  regulations  connected  with  the  institution 
of  slavery,  should  be  firmly  maintained;  the  well- 
being  and  safety  of  both  master  and  slave  demand 

<  -Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  2. 
•6Acts  of  1858,  Ch.  3,  Sec.  1. 
<7Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  10. 
?8M.  &  C.,  Sees.  2577-2580. 
-9Acts  of  1856,  Ch.  30,  Sees.  1-4. 
8°M.  &  C.,  Sec.  2576. 
"Acts  of  1806,  Ch.  32,  Sec.  8. 
S2Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  10. 
83M.  &  C.,  Sec.  2575. 
8*M.  &  C.,  Sec.  2576. 


40  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

it.  The  institution  and'  support  of  the  night  watch 
and  patrol  on  some  plan  are  indispensable  to  good 
order,  and  the  subordination  of  slaves,  and  the  best 
interest  of  their  owners.  But  the  authority  con- 
ferred for  these  important  objects  must  not  be 
abused  by  those  upon  whom  it  is  conferred,  as  it 
sometimes  is  by  reckless  persons.  If  they  exceed 
the  bounds  of  moderation  in  the  injury  inflicted 
and  transcend  the  limits  prescribed  by  law  for  the 
office  of  patrol,  if  it  be  found  that  they  were  not 
entitled  to  that  justification,  then  they  will  be 
liable  under  a  verdict  to  that  effect/'85 

Proper  pass  regulations  were  an  important  feature  of 
the  patrol  system.  This  is  shown  in  the  case  of  Jones  v. 
Allen.  A  slave  attended  a  corn-shucking  without  a  pass. 
In  the  course  of  the  festivities  the  slave  was  killed.  The 
master  of  the  slave  brought  suit  for  damages  equal  to  the 
value  of  the  slave  against  the  man  who  gave  the  husking. 
The  lower  court  gave  damages  to  the  master  on  the  ground 
that  the  slave  should  not  have  been  permitted  to  remain  at 
the  husking  without  a  pass.  The  supreme  court  reversed 
the  case,  holding  that  it  was  customary  for  slaves  to  attend 
such  gatherings  without  passes  if  a  white  man  was  superin- 
tending them.86 

C.  Sheriffs  and  Constables.  It  was  the  business  of 
sheriffs  and  constables  to  apprehend  runaway  slaves,  place 
them  in  jail,  and  advertise  them  that  they  might  be  returned 
to  their  owners.  They  assisted  in  the  enforcement  of  the 
powers  of  the  patrols,  who  were  really  a  part  of  the  police 
system  of  the  state.  The  patrol  system  was  supposed  to  be 
maintained  by  the  taxation  of  slaves,  but  since  it  involved 
also  the  general  system  of  police  of  the  state,  it  was  to  some 
extent  a  burden  upon  the  general  public. 

Slavery  created  a  real  problem  of  government.  "For 
reasons  of  policy  and  necessity,"  said  Judge  McKinney  in 
1858,  "it  has  been  found  indispensable,  in  every  slave-hold- 
ing community,  to  provide  various  police  and  patrol  regu- 
lations, giving  to  white  persons,  other  than  the  owner,  the 


•85Tomlinson  v.  Doerall,  2  Head,  542  (1859). 
86Jones  v.  Allen,  1  Head,  627  (1858). 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  41 

right,  and  making  it  the  duty,  under  certain  circumstances, 
to  exercise  a  control  over  other  slaves.  The  safety  of  the 
community,  the  protection  of  the  person  and  property  of 
individuals,  and  the  safety  of  the  owner's  property  in  his 
slaves,  alike  demand  the  "enactment  of  such  laws."87 

The  constant  fear  of  insurrections,  the  ever-present  run- 
away, and  the  carelessness  of  masters  in  granting  passes 
were  the  main  reasons  why  society  maintained  such  a  rigid 
system  of  control.  Of  course,  the  interests  of  the  owners 
of  slaves  were  conserved  by  such  a  system. 

V.    SPECIAL  PROBLEMS  OF  SLAVE  GOVERNMENT — 

A.  The  Runaway.  The  runaway  was  a  great  source  of 
worry  and  expense  to  the  master  and  somewhat  of  a  terror 
to  the  community.  The  police  system  of  slavery  was  never 
able  to  prevent  runaways.  If  a  runaway  were  caught  out- 
side the  limits  of  a  corporation,  he  was  taken  before  a 
justice  of  the  peace  and  asked  for  his  master's  name.  If  he 
refused  to  give  this  information,  he  was  placed  in  jail  and 
advertised  by  a  placard  on  the  court-house  door  and  in  the 
newspapers.88  If  the  slave  was  not  claimed  within  twelve 
months,  the  sheriff  of  the  county,  on  thirty  days'  notice, 
sold  him  at  the  courthouse  to  the  highest  bidder,  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  sale  going  to  the  county.  The  county  court 
gave  title  of  the  slave  to  the  purchaser. 

The  county  jailer,  with  the  consent  of  the  county  court 
or  two  of  the  justices  of  the  peace,  could  hire  out  a  run- 
away to  either  a  private  individual  or  an  incorporated 
town.80  To  release  the  county  from  obligation,  he  placed 
around  the  negro's  neck  a  collar,  on  which  was  stamped 
"P.  G."90  The  wages  of  the  slave  went  into  the  county 
treasury  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  county  court. 

If  an  incorporated  town  or  city  hired  the  runaway,  it 
gave  bond  to  the  sheriff  of  the  county  for  double  the  value 
of  the  slave.  This  was  the  bond  of  the  corporation  to  the 

*- Jones  v.  Allen,  1  Head,  636  (1858). 

s*M.  &  C.,  Sees.  2581-3. 

ssibid.,  Sec.  2586. 

90P.  G.  was  an  abbreviation  for  public  jail. 


42  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

State  of  Tennessee  for  the  safekeeping,  good  treatment,  and 
delivery  of  the  slave  to  the  owner  or  jailer  at  the  completion 
of  the  contract.  The  wages  of  the  slave  went  to  the 
county.91  The  corporation  made  a  very  careful  description 
of  the  slave  to  use  in  case  of  escape. 

A  runaway  arrested  in  an  incorporated  city  was  taken  by 
a  patrolman  or  policeman  to  the  police-station.  He  was 
released  to  his  owner  on  payment  of  one  dollar.  If  he  was 
not  called  for,  he  was  hired  to  the  city  authorities,  advertised 
and  sold  at  public  auction  to  the  highest  bidder.  The  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sale  went  to  the  city  and  the  city  authorities 
made  a  deed  of  sale  to  the  purchaser. 

After  1819,  the  runaway  could  no  longer  be  outlawed  and 
killed  by  anyone  who  had  the  opportunity. ;)-  By  act  of 
1825,  a  runaway  was  advertised  one  year  before  he  was 
sold  at  public  auction.  If  the  owner,  within  two  years  from 
the  date  of  sale,  proved  that  the  slave  was  his,  he  could  re- 
cover the  net  proceeds  of  the  sale  or  the  slave  himself  by 
paying  the  purchaser  the  amount  paid  for  the  slaved  Any 
one  who  arrested  a  runaway  and  delivered  him  to  the  owner 
or  jailer,  was  entitled  to  the  sum  of  five  dollars  for  his  ser- 
vices..94 After  1831,  it  was  not  required  by  law  to  make  a 
proclamation  concerning  a  runaway  at  church  "on  the 
Lord's  day."95  By  act  of  1844,  sheriffs  were  given  author- 
ity to  hire  out  a  runaway  in  their  custody  to  municipal  au- 
thorities, who,  however,  were  required  to  execute  bond  twice 
the  value  of  the  slave  for  proper  treatment  of  him.96  It 
seems  that  sheriffs,  constables,  and  patrolmen  abused  the 
power  given  them  by  act  of  1831,  relative  to  the  arrest  of 
runaways  for  which  they  received  five  dollars.  Masters 
were  subject  to  useless  fees  for  the  arrest  of  slaves  who 
were  not  runaways.  In  1852,  the  arrest  and  confinement 

91M.  &  C.,  Sees.  2596-8. 
92Acts  of  1819,  Ch.  35,  Sec.  1. 
93Acts  of  1825,  Ch.  79,  Sees.  1-2. 
94Acts  of  1831,  Ch.,  103,  Sec.  8* 
asibid.,  Sec.  9. 
96Acts  of  1844,  Ch.  129,  Sec.  1. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  43 

of  slaves  in  county  jails  in  the  towns  and  vicinities  of  their 
masters  was  forbidden.97 

B.  Importation  of  Slaves.  North  Carolina,  by  act  of 
1786,  placed  a  duty  of  fifty  shillings  on  slaves  under  seven 
years  of  age  and  over  forty;  five  pounds  between  the  ages 
of  seven  and  twelve,  and  thirty  and  forty;  and  ten  pounds 
on  ages  between  twelve  and  thirty.98  This  regulation  be- 
came ineffective  when  North  Carolina  ratified  the  constitu- 
tion in  1790.  The  importation  of  slaves  into  Tennessee  as 
merchandise  was  prohibited  in  1812.99  This  act  did  not 
prohibit  people  from  moving  to  the  state  with  their  slaves, 
nor  did  it  prevent  citizens  from  bringing  into  the  state 
slaves  which  they  had  acquired  by  descent,  devise,  marriage, 
or  purchase.  Persons,  moving  into  the  state  with  their 
slaves,  were  required  within  twenty  days  to  take  oath  be- 
fore a  justice  of  the  peace  that  they  were  not  violating  the 
spirit  of  the  law.100  Such  persons  were  required  to  deliver 
to  a  justice  of  the  peace  an  inventory  of  their  slaves,  giving 
their  number,  age  and  description.  This  inventory  was  filed 
in  the  office  of  the  county  court  clerk.  The  slaves  of  any 
one  violating  this  act  were  seized  and  sold  to  the  highest 
bidder  at  public  auction.101  By  act  of  1815,  such  slaves  were 
advertised  twenty  days  before  date  of  sale.102 

The  permanent  law  of  importation  was  the  act  of  1826. 
It  retained  the  features  of  the  above  acts  and  in  addition 
forbade  the  importation  into  the  state  for  any  purpose  con- 
vict slaves  from  territories  or  states  whose  laws  transmuted 
the  crimes  of  such  slaves  upon  their  removal.103  Any  one 

97 Acts-  of  1852,  Ch.  117,  Sec.  2. 
9»Acts  of  1786,  Ch.  5,  Sec.  1. 
99Acts  of  1812,  Ch.  88,  Sec.  1. 

icoThis  oath  reads:  "I,  A.  B.,  do  solemnly  swear  or  affirm  that  I 
have  removed  myself  and  slaves  to  the  State  of  Tennessee,  with  the 
full  and  sole  view  of  becoming  a  citizen  therof,  and  that  I  have  not 
brought  my  slave  or  slaves  to  this  state  with  any  view  to  the  security 
of  the  same  against  any  rebellion  or  apprehension  of  rebellion.     So 
help  me  God."     Acts  of  1812,  Ch.  88,  Sec.  2. 
of  1812,  Ch.  88,  Sec.  3. 
of  1815,  Ch.  65,  Sec.  1. 
of  1826,  Ch.  22,  Sec.  2. 


44  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

violating  this  act  was  ordered  before  a  justice  of  the  peace, 
who  might  require  him  to  give  bond  with  two  good  securities 
for  his  appearance  with  the  slaves  at  the  next  term  of  the 
circuit  court.  If  he  were  convicted  of  violating  this  act,  his 
slaves  were  sold  at  public  auction  to  the  highest  bidder.104 
It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  a  professional  slave-dealer 
could  afford  to  lose  a  few  slaves  occasionally,  because  he  paid 
only  the  transportation  for  convict  slaves  and  received  from 
five  hundred  to  eight  hundred  dollars  for  each  slave  that  he 
successfully  smuggled  through. 

There  was  no  change  in  the  laws  of  importation  until  1855. 
The  act  passed  in  that  year  permitted  the  importation  of 
slaves  other  than  convicts  as  articles  of  merchandise,  and 
thus  replaced  the  acts  of  1815  and  1826  in  this  respect.105 
This  indicates  a  revolution  on  this  subject.  West  Tennes- 
see, the  black  belt  part  of  the  state,  began  to  be  settled  in 
1819  and  was  being  put  into  cultivation  in  the  second  quarter 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  abolition  forces  in  the  state 
were  defeated  in  the  constitutional  convention  of  1834.106 
The  demand  for  slaves  had  increased  as  is  shown  by  the  in- 
crease in  price  from  $584  in  1836  to  $854.65  in  1859.107  The 
old  Whig  areas  had  become  Democratic  by  the  early  fifties, 
and  Middle  and  West  Tennessee  were  pro-slavery.  The 
press  and  the  churches  had  become  more  favorable  in  their 
attitude  toward  slavery. 

C.  The  Stealing  of  Slaves.  Slaves  were  constantly 
stolen  by  individuals  and  organizations  of  professional  slave 
thieves.  This  was  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems  of 
slave  government,  and  demanded  very  rigid  laws  for  its 
regulation.  By  act  of  1799,  a  person  stealing  a  slave,  a 
free  negro,  or  mulatto,  for  his  own  use  or  to  sell  was  guilty 
of  a  felony  and  suffered  death  without  benefit  of  clergy.108 
The  penalty  for  this  offence  in  1835  was  reduced  to  not  less 

10*Acts  of  1826,  Ch.  22,  Sec.  3. 

iosActs  of  1855,  Ch.  64,  Sec.  1. 

106Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1834,  87-147. 

107 Comptroller's  Report  to  General  Assembly,  1859-60,  17. 

108Acts  of  1799,  Ch.  11,  Sec.  2. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  45 

than  three  nor  more  than  ten  years  in  the  penitentiary.109 
The  penalty  was  the  same  for  harboring  a  slave  with  intent 
to  steal  him,  or  for  persuading  a  slave  to  leave  his  master.110 
The  following  advertisement  from  a  religious  magazine 
shows  how  society  was  aroused  at  times  on  the  stealing  of 
slaves  and  how  it  proposed  to  recover  them : 

A  more  heart-rending  act  of  villainly  has  rarely 
been  committed  than  the  following:  on  Monday, 
the  30th  of  May  last,  three  children,  viz.,  Elizabeth, 
ten  years  of  age,  Martha,  eight,  and  a  small  boy, 
name  forgotten,  all  bright  mulattoes,  were  vio- 
lently taken  from  the  arms  of  their  mother,  Eliza- 
beth Price,  a  free  woman  of  color,  living  in  Fayette 
County,  Tennessee.  Strong  suspicion  rests  upon 
two  men,  gone  from  thence  to  the  state  of  Mis- 
souri; and  it  is  ardently  hoped  that  the  citizens 
of  that  state  will  interest  themselves  in  the  appre- 
hension of  the  robbers  and  the  restoration  of  the 
children.  A  handsome  subscription  has  been  raised 
in  the  neighborhood  to  reward  any  person  who 
may  restore  them.  Editors  of  papers,  and  espe- 
cially such  as  are  in  and  contiguous  to  the  state  of 
Missouri,  are  requested  to  give  the  above  an  inser- 
tion.111 

One  of  the  greatest  organizations  in  the  South  for  the 
stealing  of  negroes  had  its  headquarters  in  West  Tennessee 
and  was  managed  by  John  A.  Murrell.  This  organization 
consisted  of  450  persons  and  operated  throughout  the  Mis- 
sissippi Valley.  This  organization  was  in  collusion  with 
slaves.  It  stole  the  same  slaves  repeatedly  and  sold  them 
sometimes  to  their  own  masters.  MurrelFs  last  stealing 
was  two  slaves  from  Rev.  John  Hennig,  of  Madison  County, 
Tennessee.  He  was  caught  in  1835,  tried,  convicted,  and 
sentenced  for  the  maximum  term  of  ten  years  in  the  state 
penitentiary.112 


109Acts  of  1835,  Ch.  58,  Sec.  1. 

110Ibid.,  Sec.  2. 

^Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  Bolivar,  July  4,  1831. 

112Quarterly  Anti-Slavery  Magazine,  II,  105-6. 


46  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

D.  Trading  With  Slaves.  The  foundation  for  the  reg- 
ulation of  traffic  with  slaves  was  laid  by  the  acts  of  1741 
and  1787,  passed  by  the  Colony  and  State  of  North  Caro- 
lina.113 In  1799,  all  traffic  with  slaves  was  forbidden  un- 
less they  had  a  permit  from  their  masters,  designating  time 
and  place  of  the  proposed  transaction.114  It  was  a  ten  dol- 
lar fine  to  be  convicted  of  violating  this  regulation.  If  a 
slave  forged  a  pass  as  a  basis  for  such  a  transaction,  he 
was  corporally  punished  at  the  discretion  of  a  justice  of  the 
peace.  Trading  with  slaves  was  made  a  more  serious  mat- 
ter in  1803. 115  The  pass  by  this  act  was  required  to  specify 
the  articles  to  be  traded.  Any  one  violating  it  was  punish- 
able by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  ten  nor  more  than  fifty  dol- 
lars. In  1806,  it  was  made  unlawful  for  a  white  person, 
free  negro,  or  mulatto  to  be  found  in  the  company  of  a 
slave  for  any  purpose  without  the  consent  of  the  owner.116 
In  1813,  the  restrictions  on  trading  with  slaves  were  made 
more  lenient.  The  fine  for  trading  in  violation  of  the  law 
was  reduced  to  not  less  than  five  nor  more  than  ten  dollars 
and  slaves  might  trade  articles  of  their  own  make  without 
passes  from  their  masters.117 

The  liquor  traffic  was  the  most  difficult  part  of  trading 
with  slaves  to  regulate.  The  North  Carolina  code  left  whis- 
key in  the  same  category  with  other  articles,  but  in  1813 
Tennessee  made  it  punishable  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  five 
nor  more  than  ten  dollars  to  sell  it  to  slaves.118  If  a  person 
was  convicted  of  violating  this  regulation  and  could  not 
pay  his  fine,  he  went  to  jail  until  he  could  pay  it  with  cost. 
By  act  of  1829,  a  slave  was  given  from  three  to  ten  lashes 
for  having  whiskey  in  his  possession  and  from  five  to  ten 
for  selling  it  to  another  slave.119  Any  merchant,  tavern- 
keeper,  distiller,  or  any  other  person,  who  sold  whiskey 

113Supra,  pp.  18-19. 

"*Acts  of  1799,  Ch.  28,  Sec.  1.  . 

i^Acts  of  1803,  Ch.  13,  Sec.  4. 

"«Acts  of  1806,  Ch.  32,  Sec.  4. 

i^Acts  of  1813,  Ch.  135,  Sec.  3. 

118Ibid.,  Sec.  1. 

"9Acts  of  1829,  Ch.  74,  Sees.  1-2. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  47 

to  a  slave  without  permit  from  his  master,  was  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor,  and,  on  being  convicted,  was  subject  to  a 
fine  of  fifty  dolars.120 

The  laws  regulating  this  traffic  became  increasingly 
strict.  By  act  of  1832,  a  dealer  in  order  to  secure  a  license 
to  sell  whiskey  was  required  to  take  an  oath  not  to  sell  a 
slave  unless  he  had  a  written  permit  from  his  master.121 
Clerks  in  liquor  houses,  not  considering  themselves  dealers, 
continued  to  sell  whiskey  to  slaves ;  so  in  1846,  the  oath  was 
modified  to  include  sales  within  the  knowledge  of  the  person 
receiving  the  license.122  In  1842,  the  punishment  for  selling 
whiskey  to  slaves  or  letting  a  free  negro  be  intoxicated  on 
one's  premises  was  made  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  not 
exceeding  thirty  days.123 

The  policy  of  the  state  toward  the  liquor  traffic  with  slaves 
was  forcibly  expressed  by  Judge  Caruthers  in  the  case  of 
Jennings  v.  the  State,  as  follows: 

Under  no  circumstances,  not  even  in  the  pres- 
ence, or  by  permission  in  writing  or  otherwise,  can 
spirits  be  sold  or  delivered  to  a  slave  for  his  own 
use,  but  only  for  the  use  of  the  master,  and  even 
in  that  case,  the  owrner  or  master  must  be  present 
or  send  a  written  order,  specifying  that  it  is  for 
himself,  and  the  quantity  to  be  sent ...  A  general 
or  indefinite  order,  such  as  those  exhibited  in  this 
case,  is  of  no  avail.  An  order  can  cover  only  a 
single  transaction,  and  then  it  is  exhausted.1- 

It  is  noticed  that  this  law  applied  to  everybody  and  not 
merely  to  licensed  liquor  dealers. 

The  laws  on  traffic  with  slaves  finally  concluded:  "Any 
person  who  sells,  loans,  or  delivers  to  any  slave,  except  for 
his  master  or  owner,  and  then  only  in  such  owner  or  mas- 
ter's presence,  or  upon  his  written  order,  any  liquor,  gun, 

120Acts  of  1829,  Ch.  74,  Sec.  4. 
121Acts  of  1832,  Ch.  34,  Sec.  2. 
122Acts  of  1846,  Ch.  90,  Sec.  3. 
issActs  of  1842,  Ch.  141,  Sec.  1. 
12*Jennings  v.  the  State,  3  Head,  519-520  (1859). 


48  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

or  weapon  ...  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall  be  fined 
not  less  than  fifty  dollars,  and  imprisoned  in  the  county  jail 
at  the  discretion  of  the  court."125  Judge  Caruthers,  com- 
menting on  this  law,  said:  "This  is  intended  to  cut  up  the 
offense  by  the  roots,  and  prescribes  a  penalty  calculated  to 
deter  those  that  milder  punishment  had  been  found  insuffi- 
cient to  restrain  from  the  injury  or  destruction  of  their 
neighbor's  property."126 

Municipalities  usually  supplemented  the  laws  of  the  state 
with  special  regulations  of  their  own.  The  Board  of  Com- 
missioners of  Nashville,  June  7,  1805, 

Resolved,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  town 
sergeant  to  inspect  each  slave  he  may  discover 
trading  in  town,  and  require  of  them  a  permit 
from  their  master  or  mistress,  or  the  person  under 
whose  care  they  are,  specifying  the  commodity 
which  they  may  have  for  sale.  And  if  such  slave 
has  no  permit,  the  town  sergeant  shall  immediately 
seize  on  the  commodity  he  may  have  for  sale,  and 
take  it  with  the  slave  before  some  justice  of  the 
peace,  and  make  oath  that  such  slave  had  trans- 
gressed the  by-laws  for  the  regulation  of  the  town 
in  the  manner  above  described.  The  town  ser- 
geant shall  then  immediately  expose  to  sale  such 
commodity  to  the  highest  bidder  for  cash  at  the 
market  house;  one-half  of  the  amount  of  such 
sales  to  go  to  the  use  of  the  town,  and  the  other 
half  to  the  use  of  the  sergeant  for  his  services.127 

Traffic  with  slaves  was  very  important  for  several  rea- 
sons. The  slave  had  very  little  sense  of  value,  in  the  first 
place.  He  frequently  exchanged  the  most  valuable  farm 
products  for  a  pittance  in  order  to  obtain  money  with  which 
to  gamble  or  buy  whiskey.  The  liquor  traffic  still  more 
vitally  touched  the  life  of  the  plantation.  An  intoxicated 
slave  was  not  only  incapacitated,  but  he  was  inclined  to  raise 
trouble  with  other  slaves.  This  might  end  in  slaves  being 
killed  or  an  insurrection.  Again,  the  element  of  society 

125M.  &  C.,  Sec.  4865. 

126Jennings  v.  State,  3  Head,  522  (1859). 

127Tennessee  Gazette  and  Mero  District,  Vol.  5,  No.  22,  July  3,  1805. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  49 

that  engaged  in  the  liquor  traffic  with  slaves  was  usually 
the  poor  whites,  free  negroes,  or  mulattoes,  who  were  op- 
posed to  slavery  and  did  not  hesitate  to  propagate  ideas  of 
insurrection  and  freedom  among  slaves.  The  best  way  to 
keep  slaves  happy  and  contented  and,  consequently,  efficient, 
was  to  have  complete  severance  of  relations  between  them 
and  outsiders.  Finally,  it  is  noticed  that  traffic  with  slaves, 
in  all  its  ramifications,  seriously  endangered  property  in- 
terests. 

E.  Insurrections.  No  one  was  permitted  to  speak  dis- 
respectfully of  the  owner  in  a  slave's  presence,  or  to  use  lan- 
guage of  an  insurrectionary  nature.128  Words  in  favor  of 
emancipation,  rebellion,  or  conspiracy  came  under  this  head. 
The  penalty  was  a  fine  of  $10,  one-half  to  the  county  and 
the  other  to  the  reporter. 

A  person  knowingly  aiding  in  circulating  any  printed 
matter  that  fostered  discontent  or  insubordination  among 
slaves  or  free  persons  of  color,  was  guilty  of  felony,  and 
might  suffer  an  imprisonment  of  ten  years  for  first  offense 
and  twenty  for  the  second.129  The  same  punishment  was 
prescribed  for  addresses,  or  sermons  of  an  inflammatory 
nature. 

There  were  only  two  instances  of  threatend  insurrection 
in  the  slave  history  of  Tennessee.  The  first  one  of  these 
occurred  in  1831,  and  was  nipped  in  the  bud  by  information 
secured  from  a  female  slave.130  It  resulted  in  a  petition 
being  sent  to  the  legislature  signed  by  108  people,  asking 
for  a  better  patrol  system.  The  second  was  planned  in 
1857,  and  seems  to  have  included  the  states  of  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  and  Texas.131 
The  scheme  was  discovered  in  November  of  1857  among  the 
slaves  employed  at  the  Cumberland  Iron  Works  in  Tennes- 
see just  before  they  were  ready  to  execute  it.  One  account 


of  1803,  Ch.  13,  Sec.  1. 
129Acts  of  1836,  Ch.  44,  Sec,  2. 
130Niles  Register,  Vol.  41,  pp.  340-1. 
13124th  and  25th  Annual  Report  of  American  Anti-Slavery  Society. 


50  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

says,  "more  than  sixty  slaves  in  the  Iron  Works  were  im- 
plicated, and  nine  were  hung,  four  by  the  decision  of  the 
court  and  five  by  a  mob."  The  Missouri  Democrat  of  De- 
cember 4  states  that  "For  the  past  month,  the  Journals  from 
different  Southern  states  have  been  filled  with  numberless 
alarms  respecting  contemplated  risings  of  the  negro  pop- 
ulation. In  Tennessee,  in  Missouri,  in  Virginia,  and  in 
Alabama,  so  imminent  has  been  the  danger  that  the  most 
severe  measures  have  been  adopted  to  prevent  their  congre- 
gating or  visiting  after  night,  to  suppress  their  customary 
attendance  at  neighborhood  preachings  and  to  keep  a  vig- 
ilant watch  upon  all  their  movements,  by  an  efficient  pa- 
trolling system.  This  is  assuredly  a  most  lamentable  con- 
dition for  the  slave  states,  for  nothing  causes  such  terror 
upon  the  plantations  as  the  bare  suspicion  of  these  insur- 
rections.132 

F.  The  Assembly  of  Slaves.  All  slave  gatherings  on 
the  master's  plantation  were  exclusively  under  his  control, 
as  he  was  responsible  for  the  results.  It  was  considered 
dangerous  to  society,  however,  for  slaves  to  collect  miscel- 
laneously. By  act  of  1803,  it  was  made  a  ten-dollar  fine 
for  any  one  to  permit  the  slaves  of  another  to  congregate 
on  his  premises  without  passes  from  their  master.133  To 
aid  the  justices  of  the  peace  in  enforcing  this  act,  the  fine 
was  .equally  divided  between  the  county  and  the  reporter  of 
its  violation.  There  was  so  much  zeal  shown  in  the  enforce- 
ment of  this  act  that  the  fine  was  reduced  in  1813  to  not  less 
than  five  nor  more  than  ten  dollars.134 

The  insurrections  over  the  country  in  the  early  thirties 
and  rumors  of  an  insurrection  in  Tennessee  in  1831,  com- 
bined with  the  abolition  propaganda,  gave  added  signif- 
icance to  the  meetings  of  slaves.  It  now  became  necessary 
to  punish  slaves  for  participating  in  unlawful  assemblies 
as  well  as  to  fine  those  permitting  them. 


1857-58,  76-78. 

13224th  and  25th  Annual  Reports  of  American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
1857-58,  p.  78. 

^Acts  of  1803,  Ch.  13,  Sec.  3. 

13*Acts  of  1812,  Ch.  135,  Sec.  1. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  51 

The  act  of  1831  empowered  justices  of  the  peace,  con- 
stables and  patrols  to  disperse  such  meetings  and  to  inflict 
twenty-five  lashes  upon  the  slaves  engaged,  if  necessary. 
The  fine  for  permitting  unlawful  assemblies  was  now  left 
to  the  discretion  of  the  court.135  The  amount  of  litigation 
likely  to  result  from  the  enforcement  of  this  measure  made 
it  necessary  to  define  the  terms  unlawful  assembly.136 

G.     Punishment  of  Slaves — 

1.  Offenses  Punishable  by  Stripes.  Trading  without 
permits  from  their  masters  or  forging  passes  was  punish- 
able by  stripes  by  act  of  1799.  The  number  of  stripes  was 
left  to  the  discretion  of  the  justice  but  was  not  to  exceed 
'thirty-nine.137  In  1806,  riots,  unlawful  assemblies,  tres- 
passes, seditious  speeches,  insulting  language  to  whites, 
were  made  offenses  punishable  by  stripes  at  the  discretion 
of  the  justice.138  By  act  of  1813,  the  slave  was  whipped  for 
selling  any  article  not  made  by  himself.139  The  number  of 
stripes  was  not  less  than  five,  nor  more  than  thirty.  He 
was  punished  for  selling  whiskey  or  keeping  it  at  some 
other  place  than  his  own  home.  This  offense  was  punish- 
able by  not  less  than  three  nor  more  than  ten  lashes.141  It 
is  interesting  to  notice  the  leniency  in  the  punishment  for 
selling  this  particular  article.  Conspiracy,  which  was  pun- 
ishable by  death  alone  in  the  act  1741,  might  by  act  of  1831 
be  punished  by  whipping,  pillory,  or  imprisonment.141 
Death  still  remained  a  proper  punishment  for  this  offense, 
but  one  of  the  others  could  be  substituted  at  the  discretion 
of  the  justice,  depending  on  the  character  and  extent  of  the 
conspiracy.  By  act  of  1844,  the  runaway  could  be  worked 


135Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  1. 

136Unlawful  assemblies  was  defined  by  the  act  of  1831  as  being 
"all  assemblages  of  slaves  in  unusual  numbers,  or  at  suspicious  times 
and  places  not  expressly  authorized  by  their  owners." 

137 Acts  of  1799,  Ch.  28,  Sec.  1. 

138Acts  of  1801,  Ch.  32<  Sec.  3. 

139 Acts  off  1813,  Ch.  135,  Sec.  6. 

"0 Acts  of  1829,  Ch.  74,  Sec.  1. 
of  1831,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  4. 


52  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

on  the  streets  of  an  incorporated  town  and  his  wages  went  to 
the  poor.142 

2.  Capital  Offenses.     By  act  of  1741,  killing  of  horses, 
hogs,  or  cattle  without  a  permit  from  the  master  was  pun- 
ishable by  death  for  second  offense.143     In  1819,  murder, 
arson,  rape,  burglary,  and  robbery  were  made  capital  of- 
fenses and  punishment  in  all  other  cases  was  not  to  extend 
to  life  or  limb.144     By  this  act  the  suffering  of  death  by 
being  outlawed  as  a  runaway  was  abolished.     By  act  of 
1835,  intent  to  commit  rape  upon  a  whits  woman  was  pun- 
ishable by  hanging.145     The  burning  of  a  barn,  a  bridge,  or 
a  house  with  intent  to  kill  was  a  capital  offense.146 

3.  Offenses  Punishable  at  the  Discretion  of  the  Jury. 
The  burning  of  barns,  houses,  bridges,  steamboats,  manu- 
facturing plants,  and  valuable  buildings  or  property  of  any 
kind  were  offenses  for  which  the  jury  could  punish  at  their 
discretion,  provided  such  punishment  did  not  extend  to  life 
or  limb.     All  offenses  of  slaves  for  which  there  was  not  a 
specific  punishment  fixed  by  law  were  left  to  the  discretion 
of  the  jury.147     The  cutting  off  of  ears,  standing  in  the  pil- 
lory, and  branding  were  some  of  the  older  punishments  for 
which  whipping  came  to  be  a  substitute. 

VI.    TITLE  TO  SLAVES — 

A.  By  Deed.  There  was  no  statutory  restriction  upon 
the  sale  or  transfer  of  slaves  from  one  person  to  another148 
Secret  and  fraudulent  transfers  became  so  numerous  that 
sales  of  slaves  and  deeds  of  gifts  were  in  1784  required  to 
be  in  writing  attested  by  at  least  one  creditible  witness  and 
recorded  within  nine  months  thereafter.149  By  an  act  of 
1801,  such  transfers  were  no  longer  required  to  be  recorded 

142 Acts  of  1844,  Ch.  129,  Sec.  1. 
143Acts  of  1741,  Ch.  8,  Sec.  10. 
"*Acts  of  1819,  Ch.  35,  Sec.  1. 
145Acts  of  1835,  Ch.  19,  Sec.  10. 
14«M.  &  C.,  Sees.  2625-28. 
"'Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  103,  Sec.  4. 
i4swheeler,  Op.  Cit.,  41. 
"•Acts  of  1784,  Ch.  10,  Sec.  7. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  53 

if  possession  accompanied  the  sale  or  gift.150  In  the  case 
of  Davis  v.  Mitchell,  Judge  Green  charged  the  jury  that  "a 
deed  registered  is  only  necessary  where  possession  does  not 
accompany  gift  or  sale.151  A  bill  of  sale  of  slaves  by  a  per- 
son indebted,  who  still  retained  possession  of  the  slaves, 
after  the  execution  of  the  bill  of  sale,  was  void  against 
creditors,  although  a  valuable  consideration  was  received. 
A  conveyance  of  personality  presupposed  a  transfer  of  pos- 
session.152 

B.  By  Devise.     The  transfer  of  slaves  by  will  followed 
the  same  procedure  as  real  estate.     A  will,  valid  in  either 
law  or  equity,  had  to  be  in  the  handwriting  of  the  deceased 
and  signed  by  him  or  some  other  person  in  his  presence 
representing  him  and  by  two  witnesses.     Such  a  devise  was 
in  fee  simple  unless  an  estate  of  less  dignity  was  definitely 
conveyed.153     If  the  deceased  left  no  will,  the  slaves  became 
the  property  of  the  widow  for  life,  the  widow  being  required 
to  give  bond  to  the  county  that  such  slaves  with  their  in- 
crease would  be  returned  at  her  death  to  the  administrators 
of  her  deceased  husbandrs  estate.     In  absence  of  the  wife, 
the  slaves  were  equally  distributed  among  the  children.154 
By  act  of  1796,  half  bloods  were  inherited  equally  with  full 
brothers  and  sisters.     In  the  absence  of  such  brothers  and 
sisters,  the  law  of  distribution  was  followed  among  the  col- 
lateral heirs.155     By  act  of  1819,  foreigners  who  had  settled 
in  Tennessee  and  had  not  been  naturalized  inherited  in  the 
same  manner  as  natural  born  citizens.156 

C.  By  Parol  Contract,  and  Gifts  to  Children  in  Consider- 
ation of  Marriage.     Conveyance  of  slaves  was  required  to 
be  in  writing  and  properly  attested  by  witnesses.     There 


^  1801,  Ch.  2,  Sec.  11. 

151Davis  v.  Mitchell,  5  Yerger,  281  (1833)  ;  See  also  Cains  and 
Wife  v.  Marley,  2  Yerger,  582  (1831)  ;  and  Battle  v.  Stone,  4  Yerger, 
168  (1833). 

152Ragan  v.  Kennedy,  I  Overton,  91  (1804). 

153Acts  of  1784,  Ch.  22,  Sec.  11. 

i5*Ibid.,  Ch.  10,  Sec.  4. 

155Acts  of  1796,  Ch.  14,  Sec.  1. 

156Acts  of  1819,  Ch.  36,  Sec.  1. 


54  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

could  be  no  transfer  of  title  by  parol  and  no  deed  of  gift 
was  recognized  unless  it  was  proved  and  registered.157  By 
act  of  1805,  the  transfer  of  slaves  in  consideration  of  mar- 
riage, to  be  valid  against  creditors,  had  to  be  acknowledged 
by  the  grantor  or  proved  by  two  credible  witnesses  and  re- 
corded in  the  county  of  the  grantor  within  nine  months.158 

D.  By  Statute  of  Limitation.     In  Tennessee,  three  years 
of  adverse  possession  invested  the  title  of  a  slave  in  the  pos- 
sessor by  virtue  of  the  statute  of  limitation  ,159     By  the 
statute  of  limitation,  a  gift  of  parol,  which  is  absolutely  void, 
would,  after  the  lapse  of  three  years'  possession,  convey 
title.160     Judge  Green  in  Davis  v.  Mitchell,  held  that  an  in- 
fant might  hold  adverse  possession  of  a  slave,  either  by 
himself  or  through  a  guardian,  and  that  three  years  of  such 
possession  invested  the  title  of  the  slave  in  him.161     Three 
years  of  uninterrupted  possession  not  only  invested  title, 
but  the  right  to  convey  that  title. 162 

E.  By  Statute  of  Frauds  and  Fraudulent  Conveyances. 
All  gifts,  grants,  loans,  alienations  or  conveyances  made 
with  fraudulent  purposes  were  valid  only  between  the  par- 
ties making  them  and  their  heirs,  assigns,  and  administra- 
tors, and  in  no  way  barred  the  action  of  creditors.163     A 
conveyance  of  goods  or  chattels,  without  a  valuable  consid- 
eration, was  considered  fraudulent,  unless  it  was  made  by 
a  will  duly  proved  and  recorded  or  a  deed  acknowledged 
and  proved.     By  act  of  1805,  such  recording  had  to  be  done 
within  nine  months  to  be  valid  against  creditors  or  future 
purchasers.164     In  Tennessee  the  want  of  possession  was 
only  prima   facie  evidence   of  fraud,   and   might   be   ex- 
plained.105    If  a  father  represented  a  slave  to  be  his  son's 

in7Young  v.  Pate,  4  Yerger,  164  (1833). 
158Acts  of  1805,  Ch.  16,  Sec.  2. 
159Acts  of  1715,  Ch.  27,  Sec.  5. 

160Hardeson  v.   Hays,  4   Yerger,   507    (1833)  ;    Kegler  v.    Miles,  1 
Martin  &  Yerger,  426  (1825) ;  Partee  v.  Badget,  4  Yerger,  174  (1833). 
161Davis  v.  Mitchell,  5  Yerger,  281   (1833). 
162Kegler  v.  Miles,  1  Martin  &  Yerger,  426  (1825). 
1B3Acts  of\  1801,  Ch.  25,  Sec.  2. 
"14Acts  of  1805,  Ch.  16,  Sec.  2. 
165Callen  v.  Thompson,  3  Yerger,  475  (1832). 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  55 

delivered  possession  and  permitted  possession  to  continue 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  son,  who  also  claimed  the  slave 
as  his  own,  it  was  a  gift.  The  acknowledgment  of  the  son 
that  the  slave  belonged  to  the  father  would  not  bar  the 
claim  of  the  widow.166 

F.  By  Prescription.  Prescription  passed  the  title  and 
possession  of  slaves  in  Tennessee. 1GT  In  the  case  of  Andrews 
v.  Hartsfield,  Judge  Green  held  that  a  bona  fide  loan  of 
slaves  by  a  father  to  a  married  daughter  for  five  years  sub- 
jected the  slaves  to  sale  for  the  debts  of  her  husband.168 

VII.    THE  LAW  OF  INCREASE — 

A.  As  to  Condition  of  Increase.     Tennessee  adopted  the 
rule  of  nature,  pertaining  to  human  creatures,  in  declaring 
that  the  condition  of  the  mother  should  be  that  of  the  child. 
Children  born  of  a  mother  emancipated  at  a  future  date  re- 
ceived their  freedom  with  the  mother.     In  the  case  of  Har- 
ris v.  Clarissa,  who  was  to  receive  her  freedom  at  the  age 
of  twenty,  Judge  Catron,  speaking  of  the  condition  of  her 
children  born  after  the  bequest  of  her  freedom,  said :  "Had 
she  been  a  slave  forever,  their  condition  would  have  been 
the  same,  she  being  a  slave  for  years,  their  condition  could 
not  be  worse.     The  child  before  born  is  a  part  of  the  mother, 
and    its    condition    the    same;    birth    does    not    alter    its 
rights."109     Children  born  of  a  mother  conditionally  man- 
umitted were  held  to  be  slaves.1.70 

B.  As  to  the  Ownership  of  the  Increase.     Tennessee  held 
that  there  was  only  one  title  to  mother  and  child.     If  a 
negro  woman  were  devised  to  one  person  for  life,  with  the 
remainder  to  another,  and  during  the  life  estate,  she  gave 
birth  to  children,  they  belonged  not  to  the  tenant  for  life, 
but  to  the  remainder  man.171     The  first  legatee  held  only  a 

166Hooper's  Administratrix  v.  Hooper,  1  Overton,  187    (1801). 
167Acts  of  1801,  Ch.  25,  Sec.  2. 

1<iSAndrews  v.  Hartsfield,  3  Yerger,  39  (1832);  see  also  Peters  v. 
Chores,  4  Yerger,  176  (1833). 

^Harris  v.  Clarissa,  6  Yerger,  227   (1834). 

i^Hope  v.  Johnson,  2  Yerger,  123   (1826). 

171  Preston  v.  McGaughery,  1  Cook,  115  (1812). 


56  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

particular  interest,  while  the  second  held  absolute  title.172 
If  the  first  devisee  received  an  absolute  estate,  the  increase 
went  to  him.174  The  term  increase  was  usually  qualified 
by  the  word  "future"  in  order  to  restrict  its  application  to 
only  the  issue  after  the  bequest  of  freedom  to  the  mother.174 

VIII.    THE  LEGAL  STATUS  OF  THE  SLAVE — 

What,  then,  in  conclusion,  was  the  legal  status  of  the 
slave?  Was  he  a  chattel?  Or  was  he  a  responsible  per- 
son? By  the  civil  law,  the  slave  was  a  chattel;  by  the 
common  law  he  was  a  person.  Both  of  these  systems  of 
jurisprudence  were  combined  into  a  compromise  that  ac- 
tually represented  the  legal  status  of  the  slave  in  Tennes- 
see. The  slave  was  both  a  chattel  and  a  person. 

A.  As  a  Chattel.     The  slave  was  personal  property. 
He,  therefore,   could   neither  own  property,   nor  make  a 
commercial  contract.     He  had  neither  civil  marriage  nor 
political  rights.     His  movements  in  the  community  were 
under  the  control  of  his  master.     He  could  not  be  a  party 

'to  a  law  suit  in  ordinary  matters.  He  had  no  control  over 
his  time  or  labor.  His  punishments  were  usually  whip- 
ping. Like  a  chattel,  he  was  an  article  of  merchandise 
to  be  sold  to  the  highest  bidder.  He  had  no  control  over 
his  children  at  law,  and  could  not  be  a  witness  against  a 
white  man. 

B.  As  a  Person.     The  slave  was  emancipated  and  given 
his  full  rights  at  law.     He'  could  be  a  party  to  a  suit  for  his 
freedom  and  for  property  that  his  freedom  involved.     He 
could  represent  his  master  as  agent.     His  marriage,  while 
not  a  civil  one,  was  held  binding  by  the  courts.     The  chil- 
dren of  a  recognized  marriage  were  not  illegitimate,  and 
took  the  legal  status  of  the  mother.     He  could  make  a  bind- 
ing contract  with  his  master  for  his  freedom.     He  was  held 
responsible  at  law  for  murder.     His  intellectual  and  moral 
qualities  were  recognized  at  times.     He  eventually  acquired 
the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 


and  Wife  v.  Marley,  2  Yerger,  586  (1831). 
v.  Bell  and  Wife,  1  Martin  &  Yerger,  302    (1827). 
"^Wheeler,  Op.  Cit.,  225. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  57 

This  compromise  legal  basis  of  slavery  in  Tennessee  was 
well  stated  by  Judge  Nelson  in  the  case  of  Andrews  v.  Page, 
as  follows : 

While  the  institution  of  slavery  existed  it  was 
generally  held  in  the  slaveholding  states  that  the 
marriage  of  slaves  was  utterly  null  and  void;  be- 
cause of  the  paramount  ownership  in  them  as 
property,  their  incapacity  to  make  a  contract,  and 
the  incompatibility  of  the  duties  and  obligations 
of  husband  and  wife  with  relation  to  slavery  .  .  . 
But  we  are  not  aware  that  this  doctrine  ever  was 
distinctly  and  explicitly  recognized  in  this  state.175 

In  another  connection  in  the  same  case,  Judge  Nelson 
said  : 

The  numerous  authorities  above  cited  show  that 
slaves,  although  regarded  as  property  and  subject 
to  many  restrictions,  never  were  considered  by  the 
courts  of  this  state  as  standing  on  the  same  foot- 
ing} as  horses,  cattle,  and  other  personal  prop- 
erty.176 

Judge  McKinney,  in  Jones  v.  Allen,  said : 

We  are  not  to  forget,  nor  are  we  to  suppose, 
that  it  was  lost  sight  of  by  the  legislature,  that, 
under  our  modified  system  of  slavery,  slaves  are 
not  mere  chattels,  but  are  regarded  in  the  two-fold 
character  of  persons  and  property ;  that  is,  as  per- 
sons they  are  considered  by  our  laws  as  account- 
able moral  agents,  possessed  of  volition  and  loco- 
motion, and  that  certain  rights  have  been  con- 
ferred upon  them  by  positive  law  and  judicial  de- 
termination, and  other  privileges  and  indulgences 
have  been  conceded  to  them  by  the  universal  con- 
sent of  their  owners.  By  uniform  and  universal 
usage,  they  are  constituted  the  agents  of  their 
owners,  and  are  sent  on  their  business  without 
written  authority;  and  in  like  manner  they  are 
sent  to  perform  those  neighborly  good  offices  com- 
mon in  every  community.  They  are  not  at  all  times 
in  the  service  of  their  owners,  and  are  allowed  by 

175Andrewd  v.  Page,  3  Heiskell,  661  (1868). 
662. 


58  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

universal  sufferance,  at  night,  on  Sundays,  holi- 
days, and  other  occasions,  to  go  abroad,  to  attend 
church,  to  visit  those  to  whom  they  are  related  by 
nature,  though  the  relation  may  not  be  recognized 
by  municipal  law;  and  to  exercise  other  innocent 
enjoyments  without  its  ever  entering  the  mind  of 
any  good  citizen  to  demand  written  authority  of 
them.  The  simple  truth  is,  such  indulgences  have 
been  so  long  and  so  uniformly  tolerated  that  public 
sentiment  upon  the  subject  has  acquired  almost 
the  force  of  positive  law.177 

177Andrews  v.  Page,  3  Heiskell,  662-3   (1868). 


CHAPTER  III 

ECONOMICS  OF  SLAVERY  IN  TENNESSEE 

I.    SLAVERY  AN  EXPRESSION  OF  THE  SOIL. 

Someone  has  said,  "The  rocks  determine  our  politics." 
The  rocks  make  the  soil,  which  in  turn  determines  the  agri- 
cultural products  that  a  section  can  produce  with  profit, 
and,  hence,  the  labor  system.  Slavery  nowhere  in  the 
United  States  reflected  physiographic  features  more  dis- 
tinctly than  in  Tennessee.  The  three  sections  of  the  state 
have  always  differed  very  largely  in  their  agriculture,  in 
their  sympathy  with  various  sections  of  the  country,  and  in 
their  politics.  In  fact,  there  are  almost  three  peoples  and 
three  civilizations  in  Tennessee.  Physiography  has  been 
the  biggest  factor  in  the  differentiation.  The  human  re- 
sponse to  the  soil  is  very  clearly  shown.  The  differences 
in  the  sections  of  the  state  on  the  subject  of  slavery  were 
due  mainly  to  geography,  since  differences  in  climate  were 
not  sufficiently  marked  to  promote  or  create  any  special  at- 
titude of  mind  toward  slavery. 

East  Tennessee  remained  throughout  the  slavery  regime 
mainly  a  section  of  small  farmers.  It  was  only  the  river 
valleys  of  the  French  Broad,  the  Watauga,  the  Holston,  and 
the  Tennessee  that  yielded  with  advantage  to  agriculture. 
These  valleys  were  mostly  of  limestone  formation,  and  pro- 
duced a  loamy  soil  that  was  very  fertile. 

The  counties1  in  these  river  valleys  produced  considerable 
quantities  of  wheat  and  corn,  but  very  little  cotton.  In  1850 
East  Tennessee  produced  one  bale  of  cotton,  ten  hogsheads 
of  tobacco,  1,813,338  bushels  of  wheat,  and  10,998,654  bush- 
els of  corn.2  In  1840,  the  counties  containing  the  largest 
number  of  slaves  were  Knox,  numbering  1934;  Hawkins, 

'Knox,  Bledsoe,  Bradley,  Granger,  Greene,  Hawkins,  McMinn,  Mon- 
roe, Roane,  and  Hamilton  were  counties  noted  for  their  production  of 
corn  and  wheat. 

-'Comptroller's  Report  for  1850,  p.  44. 


60  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

1499;  Jefferson,  1282;  and  McMinn,  1241.  There  were  six 
counties  with  slightly  over  one  thousand  each,  six  in  the 
six  hundred  column,  and  the  others  ranged  from  150  to 
450  each.3  In  1860  there  were  four  counties  in  East  Ten- 
nessee with  2000  slaves  in  each.  In  the  same  year,  there 
were  27,560  slaves  in  East  Tennessee.3 

In  1856  there  were  only  28  farms  in  East  Tennessee  con- 
taining one  thousand  acres  or  more.  There  were  164  con- 
taining from  500  to  1000  acres,  1,173  having  from  100  to 
500  acres,  7,117  having  50  to  100  acres,  and  6,920  contain- 
ing less  than  fifty  acres.  There  were  only  192  farms  which 
contained  more  than  500  acres.  It  is  seen  from  these  figures 
that  East  Tennessee  was  populated  essentially  by  small  far- 
mers who  raised  wheat  and  corn  and  live  stock.4 

In  1840  there  were  19,915  slaves  in  East  Tennessee,  val- 
ued at  $10,813,845.5  In  1850  there  were  22,187  valued  at 
$11,248,809;  and  in  1860  there  were  27,560  slaves  valued  si 
$23,536,240.6  There  were  in  1856  only  4,784  slaveholders 
in  East  Tennessee.  Of  these,  one  held  between  200  and 
300  slaves,  3  between  70  and  100,  4  between  50  and  70. 
12  between  40  and  50,  and  only  718  owned  more  than  ten 
slaves,  and  1207  owned  only  one;  719  owned  two  slaves. 
Practically  half  the  slaveholders  of  East  Tennessee  owned 
either  one  or  two  slaves.  The  average  price  of  land  per  acre 
in  East  Tennessee  was  $4.62,  slightly  more  than  half  of  what 
it  was  for  middle  and  West  Tennessee.7  The  value  of  the 
slave  in  1859  ranged  from  $563  in  Johnson  County,  which 
is  in  the  northeastern  part  of  the  state,  in  the  mountains, 
to  $953  in  Blount  County,  which  is  bordered  by  the  Tennes- 
see River  and  is  traversed  by  some  of  its  branches. 

Middle  Tennessee  was  more  adapted  to  the  slavery  sys- 
tem than  East  Tennessee.  It  contained  the  rich  Central 
Basin,  traversed  by  the  Cumberland  River,  and  also  por- 
tions of  the  valley  of  the  Tennessee.  Slavery  was  profitable 

3Census  of  1850,  Population  I,  p.  63. 
Comptroller's  Report  for  1856,  p.  44. 
5Comptroller's  Report  for  1857-8,  p.  165. 
6Comptroller's  Report  for  1859-60,  p.  22. 
7Comptroller's  Report  for  1859,  p.  30. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  61 

in  Middle  Tennessee,  especially  for  the  cultivation  of  to- 
bacco and  cotton.  Middle  Tennessee  in  1856  raised  19,621 
bales  of  cotton  and  4,511  hogsheads  of  tobacco.  It  pro- 
duced 1,825,423  bushels  of  wheat  and  21,968,114  bushels  of 
corn.8  The  big  cotton  counties  were  Lincoln,  producing 
2,558  bales;  Williamson,  3,167  bales;  Maury,  4,623  bales: 
and  Rutherford,  4,623  bales.  All  these  counties  are  in  the 
Central  Basin.  The  big  tobacco  counties  were  Robertson, 
producing  1083  hogsheads,  Smith,  1050  hogsheads,  and  Wil- 
liamson, 1179  hogsheads. 

There  were  74  farms  in  Middle  Tennessee,  containing 
more  than  one  thousand  acres  each  and  299  farms  having 
beween  500  and  1000  acres  each.  The  counties  having 
plantations  of  more  than  500  acres  were  Wilson,  with  24, 
Davidson,  27,  Bedford,  33,  Montgomery,  23,  Williamson, 
49,  Lincoln,  50,  Rutherford,  52,  and  Giles,  60.  Most  of 
these  counties  are  located  in  the  Central  Basin,  and  have 
a  rich,  loamy  soil.  The  response  was  the  big  plantation 
and  a  dense  slave  population. 

The  slave  population  of  Middle  Tennessee,  increased  from 
106,640  in  1840,  to  131,666  in  1850  and  to  148,028  by  1860. 
Land  was  very  valuable  in  the  cotton  and  tobacco  counties, 
ranging  in  value  from  $13.54  in  Giles  County  to  $18.84  per 
acre  in  Williamson.  The  slave  in  Giles  County  was  worth 
$797  while  in  Williamson  County  he  was  valued  at  $855. 
Both  of  these  counties  were  rural  and  produced  cotton.  The 
average  value  of  land  for  this  section  was  only  $8.82  per 
acre  while  the  average  value  of  slaves  was  $838.  The  total 
value  of  slaves  in  Middle  Tennessee  in  1860  was  $126,488,- 
926. 

There  were  18,524  slaveholders  in  Middle  Tennessee  in 
1856 ;  of  this  number,  14,145  held  less  than  ten  slaves ;  only 
one  owned  more  than  300  slaves ;  about  four  thousand  held 
only  one  slave.  There  were  practically  no  large  slavehold- 
ers in  Middle  Tennessee. 

West  Tennessee  along  the  Mississippi  River  was  a  part  of 
the  Black  Belt,  and  was  more  suitable  for  the  production 


8Comptroller's  Report  for  1856,  p.  44. 


62  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

of  cotton  than  either  of  the  other  two  divisions  of  the  state. 
There  were  13,536  slaveholders  in  West  Tennessee  in  1856." 
West  Tennessee  had  larger  slaveholders  in  proportion  to 
the  total  number  than  either  of  the  other  divisions  of  the 
state.  In  East  Tennessee  those  who  owned  one  slave  were 
one-fourth  of  the  total  number  of  slaveholders;  in  Middle 
Tennessee  about  the  same  proportion  prevailed ;  and  in  West 
Tennessee  this  ratio  was  reduced  to  1:5.  In  East  Tennes- 
see there  was  only  one  person  owning  more  than  one  hun- 
dred slaves ;  in  Middle  Tennessee  there  were  twenty-five ;  L 
West  Tennessee  there  were  eighty-five. 

The  plantations  in  West  Tennessee  were  larger  and  more 
numerous,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  West  Tennessee  was  not 
settled  before  1820.  Fayette  County  had  74  plantations 
containing  between  500  and  1000  acres  each,  and  15  con- 
taining more  than  1000  acres  each.  Fayette  County  in  1860 
contained  15,473  slaves,  all  of  whom  had  been  acquired  since 
1830.10  Shelby  had  a  slave'  population  of  16,953,  which  had 
been  acquired  since  1830.  Some  of  the  most  productive  parts 
of  the  Black  Belt  in  Wes^  Tennessee,  such  as  Lake  County, 
were  not  in  cultivation  by  1860.  The  counties  along  the 
divide  between  the  Mississippi  and  Tennessee  rivers  were 
very  poor,  and  therefore  not  suitable  for  the  production  of 
cotton  in  large  quantities.  Counties  like  Hardin,  Hender- 
son, McNairy,  Chester,  Decatur,  Carroll,  Weakley,  and  Gib- 
son were  cultivated  by  small  farmers,  many  of  whom  owned 
no  slaves  at  all,  while  others  owned  only  one  or  two  slaves. 
In  these  counties,  farmers  worked  their  crops  by  themselves, 
or  by  the  side  of  their  slaves. 

The  leading  crops  of  West  Tennessee  were  cotton,  corn, 
wheat,  and  tobacco.  Cotton  was  the  chief  crop,  and  to- 
bacco was  raised  in  only  the  poorer  counties,  like  Benton, 
Carroll,  Weakley,  Gibson,  Haywood,  and  Lauderdale.  Fay- 
ette and  Shelby  were  the  big  cotton  counties.  West  Ten- 
nessee produced  in  1856  four  times  as  much  cotton  as  Middle 

9Comptroller's  Report  for  1856,  p.  44. 
10Tenth  Census,  I,  Population,  p.  63. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  63 

Tennessee,  and  3,144  hogsheads  of  tobacco  against  4,511 
produced  by  Middle  Tennessee.11 

Taking  the  state  as  a  whole,  it  was  never  more  than  a 
state  of  small  farmers.  The  plantation  system  as  it  existed 
in  Mississippi  or  South  Carolina  never  prevailed  in  Ten- 
nessee. The  soils  of  Tennessee  were  not  sufficiently  pro- 
ductive to  make  slavery  profitable  on  a  large  scale.  It  was 
more  profitable  to  own  from  one  to  hall  a  dozen  slaves  and 
work  with  them  than  to  have  an  overseer.  Of  the  33,864 
slaveholders  in  the  state  in  1850,  26,512  owned  less  than 
ten  slaves  each,  and  18,198  owned  less  than  five  each.  There 
were  only  22  persons  in  the  state  who  owned  more  than  one 
hundred  slaves.  By  1856  this  number  had  increased  to  one 
hundred  and  six. 

The  distribution  of  the  slaves  over  the  state  was  deter- 
mined by  the  crops  raised.  In  East  Tennessee  the  ratio  of 
slaves  to  whites  was  about  1  to  12;  in  Middle  Tennessee, 
1  to  3 ;  and  in  West  Tennessee,  3  to  5.  In  no  county  in  East 
Tennessee  was  the  ratio  greater  than  1  to  6,  while  in  several 
counties  it  was  1  to  60,  and  in  two-thirds  of  them  it  ranged 
from  1  to  20,  to  1  to  60.12  This,  of  course,  was  a  matter  of 
the  soil.  These  factors  reflected  themselves  in  social  life 
education,  religion,  and  politics.  Slavery  produced  aris- 
tocracy and  classes  of  society  wherever  it  appeared.  It 
made  for  the  private  school  in  education,  Whiggery  in  pob'- 
tics,  and  the  southern  division  among  the  Protestant' 
churches  that  split.  East  Tennessee  in  Andrew  Jackson's 
time  was  the  democratic  part  of  the  state.  West  Tennes- 
see, the  seat  of  the  Black  Belt,  was  the  home  of  the  Whig 
aristocracy.  When  the  Whigs  became  Democrats  in  the 
decade  between  1850  and  1860,  the  free  farmers  and  small 
slaveholders,  Democrats  of  East  Tennessee,  became  Union- 
ists  and  later  Republicans.  This  same  formula  worked 
out  over  the  entire  state.  There  are  Republican  islands 
in  Democratic  sections,  and  Democratic  islands  in  Repub- 

11Comptroller's  Report  for  1856,  p.  44. 

12Martin,  A.  E.,  Tennessee  Historical  Magazine,  I,  No.  4,  p.  279. 


64  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

lican  sections.  East  Tennesse  remained  loyal  to  the  Meth- 
odist Church,  and  West  Tennessee  went  into  the  Methodist 
Church,  South.  These  divisions  were  not  peculiar  alone  to 
the  three  grand  divisions  of  the  state,  but  are  found  in  the 
various  counties. 

For  instance,  in  the  Presidential  elections  of  1844  between 
Clay  and  Polk,  Tennessee  went  for  Clay.  The  big  Demo- 
cratic counties  of  today  were  Whig  then.  Fayette's  vote 
was  1217  to  1060  in  favor  of  Clay;  Shelby's,  1828  to  1607  in 
favor  of  Clay;  Madison's,  1562  to  737  in  favor  of  Clay;  Gib- 
son's, 1423  to  688  in  favor  of  Clay.  These  counties  are  now 
the  big  Democratic  counties  of  West  Tennessee.  They  stood 
the  same  way  in  1848  on  the  election  between  Taylor  and 
Cass.  They  voted  overwhelmingly  for  the  Whig  candidate 
for  Governor  in  1847.13 

Present  Republican  counties  of  East  Tennessee  went  Dem- 
ocratic. Washington,  1225  to  881  in  favor  of  Polk;  Sulli- 
van, 1533  to  350  in  favor  of  Polk;  Greene,  1701  to  1031  in 
favor  of  Polk.  The  same  line-up  expressed  itself  in  1847 
and  in  the  Presidential  election  of  1848.14 

There  are  certain  counties  in  West  Tennessee  today  that 
are  quite  as  overwhelmingly  Republican  as  any  in  East  Ten- 
nessee. These  counties  are  in  full  sympathy  with  the  point 
of  view  of  the  North  in  politics  and  toward  life  generally. 
The  northern  branches  of  the  churches,  together  with  their 
schools,  are  found  in  these  counties.  They  prefer  school 
teachers  from  the  North  and  send  their  children  to  northern 
colleges.  The  human  response  to  the  soil  that  determined 
their  attitude  toward  slavery  is  mainly  responsible  for 
these  results.  It  was  this  force  that  made  poor  whites  out 
of  some  and  slaveholders  out  of  others. 

II.    THE  MANAGEMENT  OF  THE  PLANTATION. 

Plantation  life  in  Tennessee  was  more  humane  than  is 
generally  supposed.  Great  care  was  taken  in  establishing 
the  negro  quarters.  There  were  several  reasons  for  this, 

13 Whig  Almanac  for  1844. 
14Whig  Almanac  for  1848. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  65 

not  especially  peculiar  to  Tennessee.  Health  is  an  indis- 
pensable factor  in  the  life  of  an  efficient  laborer.  It  saved 
or  reduced  the  expense  of  medical  attention.  Sanitary 
quarters  for  the  negroes  produced  contentment  and  thus 
lessened  the  problem  of  government.  They  prevented  the 
spread  of  disease,  and  a  consequent  heavy  death  rate.  They 
diminished  crime  among  the  slaves  and  on  the  whole  made  a 
good  reputation  for  the  master.  Respect  for  the  master 
was  no  inconsiderable  force  in  the  proper  functioning  of  a 
plantation.  The  slaveholders  discussed  these  subjects  in 
the  agricultural  fairs  and  read  papers  on  how  to  build 
proper  slave  quarters. 

In  an  issue  of  the  Practical  Farmer  and  Mechanic,  pub- 
lished at  Somerville,  Tennessee,  the  county  seat  of  the  most 
densely  slave-populated  county  in  the  state,  are  given  the 
following  instructions  relative  to  the  establishment  of  the 
plantation  buildings  : 

In  the  selection  of  his  farm,  he  (the  master) 
should  have  an  eye  to  health,  convenience  of  water, 
and  a  soil  with  such  a  substratum  as  to  retain 
manures.  His  home  should  be  neat  but  not  costly 
— erected  on  an  elevated  situation — with  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  shade  trees  to  impart  health  and 
comfort  to  its  inmates.  His  negro  quarters  should 
be  placed  a  convenient  distance  from  his  dwelling 
on  a  dry,  airy  ridge — raised  two  feet  from  the 
ground — so  they  can  be  thoroughly  ventilated  un- 
derneath, and  placed  at  distances  apart  of  at  least 
fifty  yards  to  ensure  health.  In  this  construction, 
they  should  be  sufficiently  spacious  so  as  not  to 
crowd  the  family  intended  to  occupy  them — with 
brick  chimneys  and  large  fire-places  to  impart 
warmth  to  every  part  of  the  room.  More  diseases 
and  loss  of  time  on  plantations  are  engendered 
from  crowded  negro  cabins  than  from  almost  any 
other  cause.  The  successful  planter  should  there- 
fore have  an  especial  eye  to  the  comfort  of  his 
negroes,  in  not  permitting  them  to  be  over- 
crowded in  their*  sleeping  quarters.1"' 

15The  Practical  Farmer  and  Mechanic,  October  6.  1857. 


66  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

This  was  an  ideal  that  was  regarded  as  a  model.  There 
was  pride  among  masters  as  to  the  character  and  appear- 
ance of  their  plantations.  In  a  description  of  a  plantation 
in  Haywood  County,  the  following  elaborate  set  of  buildings 
is  given:  dwelling-house,  kitchen,  washhouse,  storehouse, 
office,  smokehouse,  servants'  houses  about  the  dwelling  of 
the  master,  weaving,  ice,  and  poultry  houses,  gin  house, 
grist  mill,  flouring  mill,  wheat  granary,  stables,  corn  crib, 
overseer's  house,  seven  double  negro  cabins,  thirty-six  feet 
by  fourteen,  with  large  brick  chimneys,  closets,  and  other 
conveniences,  all  of  which  buildings  are  annually  white- 
washed.16 If  one  family  was  to  occupy  the  cabin,  it  was 
usually  about  16  feet  by  20  feet  in  its  dimensions.17  An 
effort  was  made  to  locate  cabins  among  shade  trees.  If 
this  condition  was  not  met,  trees  were  planted.  Comfort- 
able housing  of  the  slaves  was  one  of  the  real  problems  of 
slave  management,  and  it  seems  that  an  honest  effort  in 
most  cases  was  made  to  solve  it.  Proper  bedding  with  plenty 
of  blankets  was  furnished  in  the  winter,  and  close  attention 
was  given  to  the  food  of  the  slaves.  Weekly  allowances 
were  usually  made,  yet  some  fed  in  common.  Five  pounds 
of  good,  clean  bacon,  one  quart  of  molasses,  a  sufficiency  of 
bread  and  coffee  with  sugar  were  usually  distributed  to 
each  slave  on  some  designated  night  each  week.  Family  ra- 
tions were  put  together.  Single  hands  received  their  ra- 
tions separately,  and  then  united  in  squads  and  masses. 
Some  woman  was  detailed  to  cook  their  meat  or  make  their 
coffee.  The  bread  was  cooked  in  the  bakery  for  the  entire 
plantation. 

Two  suits  of  cotton  for  spring  and  summer ;  two  suits  of 
woolen  for  winter ;  four  pairs  of  shoes,  and  three  hats  made 
up  the  clothing  allowance.  The  slave  was  encouraged  to  be 
neat  in  his  dress. 

The  slaves  were  supposed  to  go  to  work  by  sunrise.  They 
rested  from  one  to  two  hours  at  noon  and  then  worked  until 
night.  In  summer,  the  plan  frequently  was  to  work  from 

^Comptroller's  Report  for  1855-6,  p.  431. 
17De  Bow's  Review,  XVII,  423. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  67 

sunrise  to  8 :00  o'clock  a.m.,  then  breakfast,  work  until  12 :00 
o'clock  at  noon,  rest  two  hours,  and  then  work  until  night. 
-  They  always  quit  work  at  noon  on  Saturday  to  prepare  for 
Sunday. 

Various  plans  were  used  to  stimulate  the  slaves  to  work. 
One  of  the  most  effective  was  "task  week."  The  negroes 
varied  among  themselves  considerably  as  to  the  rapidity 
with  which  they^coulo!  perform  their  labor.  It  was  this 
very  fact  that  constituted  the  basis  of  the  "task"  system. 
According  to  this  system,  a  slave  could  work  for  himself 
or  play  when  he  had  finished  his  assigned  task.  Some  mas- 
ters permitted  the  slaves  to  cultivate  a  few  acres  for  them- 
selves. 

Prompt  attention  in  case  of  sickness  was  a  vastly  impor- 
tant matter  among  slaves.  Masters,  mistresses,  and  over- 
seers usually  knew  a  great  many  home  remedies  which,  if 
given  in  time,  would  suffice  for  a  large  number  of  com- 
plaints. A  good  amount  of  red  pepper  was  used  in  the  veg- 
etables. This  was  supposed  to  stimulate  the  system,  pre- 
vent sore  throat,  and  render  the  system  less  liable  to  chills 
and  fevers. 

Good  plantation  management  contained  a  number  of  ad- 
ditional interesting  features,  A  weekly  dance  was  an  event 
to  be  looked  forward  to.  For  the  master  and  mistress  to 
chaperon  these  occasions  made  a  strong  impression  on  the 
slaves.  Family  prayers  in  which  the  slaves  participated 
had  a  bracing  effect  on  the  negro's  character.  It  was  wise 
to  have  an  employed  preacher  for  the  slaves.  Religion  ap- 
pealed to  the  negro's  character,  and  it  was  a  psychological 
factor  in  his  control. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  features  of  plantation  life 
was  the  raising  of  poultry  by  the  old  slaves  who  were  in- 
capacitated for  hard  work.  An  old  negro  man,  giving  most 
zealous  attention  to  his  brood,  his  negro  assistants  careful 
to  please  him  in  every  detail,  and  the  "happy  family,"  con- 
sisting of  everything  from  a  bob  white  and  turkey  gobbler 


68  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

to  a  mockingbird,  made  one  of  the  most  beautiful  pictures  of 
plantation  life.18 

The  duties  of  the  master  was  a  subject  that  was  kept  be- 
fore the  community  even  if  economic  interests  were  not 
sufficient  to  control  such  matters.  J.  P.  Williams,  in  a 
prize  essay  on  plantations  and  their  management,  urged 
that  the  master  should  give  his  personal  attention  to  his 
negroes.  He  thought  that  such  supervision  would  not 
only  pay  in  financial  returns  but  would  largely  solve  the 
problem  of  discontent  and  insubordination  frequently  due 
to  mistreatment  of  slaves  by  an  overseer.19 

18The  following  is  a  description  of  "a  master  in  Haywood  County, 
who,  having  the  Shanghai  mania,  raised  one  year  over  eight  hundred 
of  them,  under  the  careful  attention  and  supervision  of  an  old  man, 
who  had  numbered  his  three  score  years,  and  was  very  infirm,  but 
who,  after  proper  preparation  in  the  several  coops  and  houses,  with 
suitable  places  as  depositories  for  their  food,  took  great  pleasure  in 
his  charge,  and,  with  the  negroes  assisting  him,  it  was  pleasing  to 
see  the  delight  he  manifested  in  the  care  of  his  brood,  and  with  what 
pride  he  would  discourse  on  their  good  qualities  to  his  respective 
visitors.  Upwards  of  one  hundred  pair  were  given  away,  and  from 
the  sales  of  others  at  five  dollars  the  pair,  the  old  negro's  labor  con- 
tributed to  the  income  of  the  farm  more  than  two  hundred  dollars. 
To  suppress  the  romantic  suggestions  that  his  rural  pursuits  in  his 
retirement  might  lead  to,  he  would  exhibit  his  'happy  faimly'  uncaged 
to  his  visitors,  when  he  pointed  to  the  fowl,  the  duck,  the  turkey,  the 
pea-fowl,  the  pigeon,  the  partridge,  the  dove,  the  jaybird,  the  squir- 
rel, the  rabbit,  the  red  bird,  the  woodpecker,  the  humming  and  mock- 
ing bird,  as  they  occupied  their  respective  places  in  the  forest  before 
his  dwelling,  and  frequently  several  of  them  might  be  seen  eating  to- 
gether, feeling  instinctively  conscious,  from  habit  long  indulged,  that 
they  had  a  protector  over  them,  that  prevented  their  being  wantonly 
destroyed." 

Comptroller's  Report  1855-6,  p.  432. 

19"He  should  see,"  said  Williams,  "that  their  cabins  are  kept  clean 
and  free  from  all  kinds  of  filth,  and  that  their  hours  of  retiring 
should  be  regular  and  at  an  early  period  of  the  night..  Their  food 
should  be  nourishing  and  well  cooked,  with  plenty  of  vegetables  in 
heat  of  summer. 

"He  should  have  his  negroes  comfortably  clad,  winter  and  summer, 
and  see  that  their  persons  as  well  as  their  clothing  are  kept  clean  and 
nice,  and  that  they  are  not  driven  out  in  unsuitable  weather  (which  is 
too  often  the  case  by  over-bearing  overseers),  if  he  expects  them  to 
enjoy  health  or  live  to  an  age  to  be  profitable  .,o  their  masters.  He 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  69 

The  master's  relation  to  the  overseer  was  an  important 
factor  in  the  management  of  the  plantation.  It  was  a 
good  policy  to  pay  any  overseer  well.  This  gave  the  master 
the  right  to  demand  his  entire  time,  and  usually  ended  in 
efficiency  and  satisfactory  relations  of  overseer  to  both 
master  and  slaves. 

"An  employer,"  said  Jas.  C.  Lusby,  in  a  paper  read  before 
the  Agricultural  and  Mechanical  Society  of  Fayette  County, 
September  2,  1855,  "should  never  ask  a  negro  any  ques- 
tions whatever  about  the  business  of  the  plantation,  or  the 
condition  of  the  crops;  nor  say  anything  in  the  presence 
of  the  negroes  about  the  overseer,  for  they  are  always  ready 
to  catch  any  word  that  may  be  dropped,  and  use  it  if  pos- 
sible to  cause  a  disturbance  between  the  master  and  the 
overseer."20  It  seems  that  there  was  a  common  practice 
among  masters  to  have  one  or  two  trusties  among  the  ne- 
groes to  act  as  spies  upon  the  overseer.  "Negroes,"  said 
Lusby,  "in  two-thirds  of  the  cases,  are  the  cause  of  em- 
ployers and  overseers  falling  out."21  The  successful  planter 
was  one  who  gave  sufficient  time  and  thought  to  the  man- 
agement of  his  farm  to  enable  him  to  be  his  own  judge 
as  to  the  character  and  efficiency  of  his  overseer. 

The  overseer  was  the  most  important  factor  in  the  man- 
agement of  the  large  plantation.  His  indifference  toward 
the  interests  of  either  master  or  slaves  broke  down  the 
system,  because  there  was  perfect  unity  of  interests  in- 
herent in  the  system,  and  the  successful  overseer  recog- 
nized this  ideal.  It  was  the  business  of  the  overseer  to  be 


should  attend  to  their  morals  and  instruct  them  himself,  or  employ 
others  to  do  so,  as  regards  their  duties  and  obligations  to  their  master 
and  their  Creator — so  they  may  thoroughly  understand  the  full  nature 
of  vice  and  crime,  and  their  consequent  punishment  here  and  here- 
after. These  instructions  will  make  them  better  servants  by  teaching 
them  their  true  and  relative  positions,  and  prevent  cases  of  insub- 
ordination which  so  often  arise  from  ignorance  and  neglect.  Let 
their  treatment  be  mild  and  humane,  at  the  same  time  stern  and 
uncompromising  in  the  punishment  of  offenses." — The  Practical 
Farmer  and  Mechanic,  October  6,  1857. 

^Comptroller's  Report  for  1855-6,  p.  525. 

"Ibid.,  p.  526. 


70  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

present  at  the  beginning  of  every  important  work,  not 
merely  because  he  was  paid  to  do  so,  but  because  the  ne- 
groes always  took  advantage  of  his  absence.  It  was  his 
business  to  ring  a  bell  or  blow  a  horn  in  the  morning  for 
breakfast,  because  it  was  unsafe  to  entrust  this  duty  to  a 
negro  driver  for  the  reason  that  it  was  almost  impossible 
to  find  a  negro  sufficiently  regular  in  his  habits  to  be  re- 
liable. If  the  breakfast  hour  was  a  failure,  the  entire  day's 
work  was  seriously  damaged. 

The  overseer  had  to  see  that  the  negroes  were  up  by  four 
o'clock  in  the  winter  and  about  half  past  three  in  the  spring 
and  summer.  This  gave  time  to  prepare  victuals,  arrange 
clothes  and  shoes,  to  see  that  horses  and  mules  were  prop- 
erly fed,  that  crib  doors  were  shut,  that  fires  were  built 
for  the  children,  and  that  everybody  was  ready  to  go  to 
work  by  daylight.22 

The  overseer  accompanied  the  slaves  to  the  field  and  saw 
that  the  day's  work  was  properly  begun.  He  could  then 
return  to  his  house  for  breakfast.  Following  breakfast, 
he  was  free  to  make  a  general  inspection  of  the  plantation. 
He  inspected  the  cabins  to  see  that  they  were  neatly  kept, 
that  the  clothes  of  the  negroes  were  washed,  that  the  negro 
nurses  were  properly  looking  after  the  children,  that  the 
common  bakery,  boot-and-shoe  shop,  carpenters,  mechanics, 
and  tailors  were  efficiently  functioning. 

He  inspected  fences,  ditches,  gates,  and  stock  occasion- 
ally. He  visited  the  cabins  two  or  three  times  a  week  at 
night  to  see  that  the  negroes  were  at  home  and  that  no 
strange  negroes  were  on  the  premises.  The  nature  of  the 
negro  was  to  gad  about,  and  to  keep  improper  hours.  It 
was  the  duty  of  the  overseer  to  prevent  this.  He  had  to 
look  after  the  farming  implements,  and,  after  the  crops 
were  harvested,  to  gather  up  the  tools  of  the  plantation 
and  have  them  repaired  and  properly  housed  during  the 
winter. 

The  overseer  had  constantly  to  plan  work  two  or  three 
weeks  in  advance  to  have  the  greatest  success.  He  had  to 

^Comptroller's  Report  for  1855-6,  p.  527. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  71 

keep  in  close  touch  with  the  master,  especially  concerning 
work  after  the  crops  were  finished.  "I  consider  it  to  be 
the  duty  of  the  overseer,"  said  Lusby,  "to  do  anything  that 
the  employer  wishes  him  to  do,  right  or  wrong."23 

Lusby  advocated  that  an  overseer  should  be  a  model  of 
personal  appearance.  He  should  keep  himself  close-shaven, 
wear  good  clothes,  "hold  his  head  up  equal  to  his  employer, 
ride  a  good,  sprightly  horse,  and  have  one  of  the  hands 
to  attend  to  him,  and  saddle  him  in  the  morning."23  An 
overseer  was  rated  by  the  slaves  very  largely  according  to 
the  manner  in  which  he  conducted  himself.  His  personal 
conduct  was  a  determining  factor  in  the  degree  of  control 
that  he  was  able  to  exercise.  This  factor  either  made  or 
undid  all  his  efforts. 

An  overseer  who  was  a  success  in  the  employment  of  a 
master  was  usually  able  to  buy  land  and  negroes  for  him- 
self in  a  few  years.  In  an  address  given  at  an  agricultural 
fair  in  Jackson,  Tennessee,  in  1855,  an  account  is  given 
of  a  planter  in  Haywood  County,  who  had  had  only  four 
overseers  from  1838  to  1855.  One  of  these  in  six  years, 
with  a  large  family,  accumulated  nineteen  hundred  dol- 
lars which  he  invested  in  lands  and  negroes  in  Texas,  and 
was  soon  doing  well.  Another  accumulated  in  seven  years 
more  than  two  thousand  dollars,  and  was  ready  to  go  to 
Arkansas  and  invest  his  capital  in  lands  and  negroes.  The 
other  two  had  similar  success.24 

The  slaves  in  Tennessee  undoubtedly  were,  on  the  whole, 
humanely  treated.  Rev.  Arthur  Howard  says  in  his  his- 
tory of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Tennessee  that  "it  is  im- 
possible to  deny  that  the  negroes  of  the  South  were  hap- 
pier, and  better  cared  for,  physically  and  morally,  under  the 
system  of  slavery  existing  in  the  South,  than  they  have  been 
at  any  time  since  they  obtained  their  freedom  and  were 

^Comptroller's  Report  for  1855-6,  p.  527. 
p.  431. 


72  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

suddenly,  without  any  training,  endowed  with  the  right  of 
citizenship."25 

Rev.  J.  N.  Pendleton,  of  the  Baptist  Church,  said: 
I  take  great  pleasure  in  testifying  that  slavery 
in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  and  I  was  not  ac- 
quainted with  it  elsewhere,  was  of  the  mild  type. 
When  I  went  North,  nothing  surprised  me  more 
than  to  see  laborers  at  work  in  the  rain  and  snow. 
In  such  weather,  slaves  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee 
would  have  been  under  shelter.26 

III.    WAS  SLAVERY  PROFITABLE  IN  TENNESSEE? 

There  is  a  great  deal  of  evidence  that  slavery  was  profit- 
able, and  some  that  it  was  not.  Slavery  increased  very 
rapidly  in  the  first  two  decades  of  the  history  of  the  state. 
From  1790  to  1800  there  was  an  increase  of  297.54  per 
cent,  and  from  1800  to  1810  an  increase  of  229.31  per 
cent.27  Slave  population  increased  only  79.06  per  cent 
in  the  next  decade,  and  only  244.19  per  cent  from  1820  to 
1860.  This  decrease  in  percentage  from  1820  to  1860  is 
in  face  of  the  fact  that  West  Tennessee,  the  Black  Belt 
part  of  the  state,  was  settled  and  populated  during  this 
period.  This  evidently  means  that  slavery  was  not  making 
much  progress  in  East  and  Middle  Tennessee. 

Slaves  increased  in  value  very  rapidly  in  Tennessee  from 
1790  to  about  1836.  They  were  worth  only  $100  each  in 
1790,  but  by  1836  they  were  valued  at  $584.28  They  de- 
creased in  value  to  $413.72  by  1846.  They  reached  the  1836 
mark  again  in  1854,  and  by  1860  were  valued,  for  purposes 
of  taxation,  at  $900.29  This  valuation,  was  largely  controlled 
by  the  price  of  cotton.  The  average  price  of  cotton  for  the 
decade  ending  1830  was  13.3  cents  per  pound;  for  the 
decade  ending  1840,  12.4  cents ;  for  the  decade  ending  1850, 

25Howard,  Rev.  Arthur,  History  of  the  Church  in  the  Diocese  of 
Tennessee,  p.  177. 

26Pendleton,  J.  N.,  Reminiscences  of  a  Long  Life,  p.  127. 
27Statistical  Abstract  of  U.  S.,  1906,  p.  32. 

^Comptroller's  Report  for  1857-8,  p.  165. 
'•^Comptroller's  Report  for  1859-60,  p.  22. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  73 

8.2  cents;  and  for  the  five  years  ending  1855,  9.6  cents.30 
The  values  and  prices  of  Tennessee  slaves  and  cotton  only 
roughly  corresponded  to  those  of  the  United  States  at  the 
same  time.  In  1792,  the  average  value  of  a  slave  in  the 
United  States  was  $300,  and  in  1835  it  was  $900,  and  $600 
in  1844.31  Upland  cotton  was  worth  17 V^  cents  per  pound 
in  New  York  City  in  1835  and  7%  cents  in  1844.  It  was 
generally  held  that  a  difference  of  one  cent  a  pound  in  the 
price  of  cotton  made  a  difference  of  $100  in  the  price  of 
slaves,  but  this  could  not  apply  to  the  above  prices. 

Slavery  was  undoubtedly  very  profitable  in  Middle  and 
West  Tennessee.  F.  A.  Michaux  in  travelling  from  Nash- 
ville to  Knoxville  in  1802  says:  ."Between  Nashville  and 
Fort  Blount  (above  Nashville  on  the  Cumberland  River 
about  sixty  miles)  the  plantations,  although  isolated  in  the 
woods  always,  are  nevertheless,  upon  the  road,  within  two 
or  three  miles  of  each  other.  The  inhabitants  live  in  com- 
fortable log  houses;  the  major  part  keep  negroes,  and  ap- 
pear to  live  happy  and  in  abundance."32  He  says  West  Ten- 
nessee (Cumberland),  now  Middle  Tennessee,  produced  a 
very  fine  grade  of  cotton  and  that  manufacture  was  en- 
couraged by  the  legislature.33  "Emigrants  to  Tennessee," 
he  continues,  "by  at  least  the  third  year  have  gone  over  to 
the  cotton  crop."  He  says  that  a  man  and  his  wife  could, 
aside  from  raising  sufficient  Indian  corn  for  sustenance 
"cultivate  four  acres  (of  cotton)  with  the  greatest  ease." 
This  would  yield  a  net  produce  of  two  hundred  and  twelve 
dollars.  "This  light  sketch,"  he  says,  "demonstrates  with 
what  facility  a  poor  family  may  acquire  speedily,  in  West 
Tennessee,  a  certain  degree  of  independence,  particularly 
after  having  been  settled  five  or  six  years,  as  they  procure 
the  means  of  purchasing  one  or  two  negroes,  and  of  an- 
nually increasing  this  number."34 

Lilly  Buttrick,  travelling  in  Tennessee  from  1812  to  1819, 


30Stirling,  James,  Letters  from  the  Slave  States,  p.  305. 
31Political  Science  Quarterly,  XX,  p.  267. 
32Thwaites,  III,  257. 
277. 
278. 


74  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

speaks  of  stopping  with  an  Indian  slave  owner  by  the  name 
of  Talbot,  who  lived  on  the  bank  of  the  Tennessee.  "This 
man,"  he  says,  "was  said  to  be  very  rich,  in  land,  cattle,  and 
negro  slaves,  and  also  to  have  large  sums  of  money  in  the 
bank."35 

The  culture  of  cotton  was  profitable  from  the  very  be- 
ginning of  the  state  down  to  1860.  As  early  as  July,  1797, 
Mr.  Miller  of  the  firm  of  Miller  and  Whitney,  proposed  to 
his  partner  that  they  send  an  agent  to  Knoxville,  "where 
we  were  informed  that  cotton  was  valuable,"  and  to  Nash- 
ville and  the  Cumberland  settlements  to  gather  information 
concerning  the  culture  of  cotton  in  those  parts  and  the  mode 
of  cleaning  it.36  As  soon  as  the  people  of  these  frontier 
settlements  learned  that  the  cotton  gin  was  a  success,  they 
held  public  meetings  and  petitioned  the  legislature  of  Ten* 
nessee  to  buy  the  patent  rights  of  Miller  and  Whitney  to 
the  saw-gin  within  the  limits  of  Tennessee.  Andrew  Jack- 
son presided  at  some  of  these  meetings.37  In  accordance 
with  the  wishes  of  the  people,  the  legislature  purchased  the 
patent  rights  for  the  gin  within  the  limits  of  Tennessee  in 
1803,  and  the  state  began  to  encourage  the  growth  of  cot- 
ton. "Cotton  production  in  this  state,"  says  Hammond, 
"with  the  exception  of  a  few  years  in  the  40's,  continued  to 
increase  at  a  uniform  rate  until  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil 
War."38 

A.  D.  Murphrey,  a  North  Carolinian,  travelling  through 
West  Tennessee  in  1822,  and  writing  to  his  friend,  Thomas 
Ruffin,  left  the  following  account  of  the  soil  and  the  profits 
in  farming  in  West  Tennessee:  "Since  I  wrote  you  last  I 
have  been  through  nearly  one-half  of  the  Chickashaw  Pur- 
chase, and  if  I  was  disappointed  as  to  old  Tennessee,  I  was 
still  more  as  to  the  Purchase;  but  my  disappointment  was 
of  another  kind.  I  have  never  seen  such  a  beautiful  coun- 
try before,  nor  one  where  industry  can  be  so  well  rewarded. 


35Thwaites,  VIII,  73. 

36American   Historical   Review,   October,   1897    (Letter  of   Phineas 
Miller  to  Eli  Whitney,  July  21,  1797). 

37 Aurora  and  General  Advertiser,  September  3,  1802. 
38Hammond,  M.  B.,  The  Cotton  Industry,  p.  70. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  75 

It  is  very  much  like  Mecklenburg  and  Cararrus  were,  I  ex- 
pect, a  hundred  years  ago,  in  their  appearance ;  but  there  is 
a  fertility  in  its  poorest  soil  that  I  have  seen  nowhere  else. 
Except  the  swamp,  there  is  really  no  poor  land,  if  we  are  to 
judge  from  its  production;  for  on  the  poorest  ridges  that 
I  have  seen,  six  and  eight  barrels  of  corn,  or  1000  pounds 
of  cotton  is  the  ordinary  crop.  What  is  there  called  good 
land  brings  upon  an  average  10  barrels  of  corn  or  1300 
pounds  of  cotton  to  the  acre ;  and  one  hand  will  tend  more 
land  than  two  in  any  part  of  North  Carolina  west  of  Ra- 
leigh. I  have  just  left  the  house  of  a  Mr.  Morgan  on 
Sandy  River,  who  is  now  working  his  second  crop  and 
works  four  hands.  He  has  prepared  80  acres  of  this  ground 
since  Xmas,  1821  (this  was  July,  1822),  and  his  crop  of 
corn,  without  severe  disaster,  will  be  1000  barrels  .  .  . 
The  soil  is  rich,  black  land,  varying  in  depth  from  four  to 
ten  inches;  then  comes  a  good  clay — not  a  stone  or  pebble 
to  be  seen."39 

The  Nashville  Banner  in  1833,  in  a  discussion  on  the 
prosperity  of  Tennessee,  boasted  that  "the  profits  alone" 
on  the  crop  of  cotton,  in  the  present  year,  "will  pay  the 
whole  aggregate  debt  of  Tennessee  and  leave  a  large  bal- 
ance in  favor  of  the  country."40 

In  the  reports  made  to  the  Comptroller,  and  inventories 
given  in  the  proceedings  of  the  county  and  district  fairs, 
there  are  numerous  examples  of  individuals  who,  with  a 
few  slaves,  purchased  lands,  cleared  and  stocked  them,  and 
made  big  money  in  farming.  The  following  is  a  detailed 
account  of  what  a  Middle  Tennessee  planter  did,  who  in 
1838  had  twenty-two  negroes,  only  fifteen  of  whom  were 
field  hands :  "He  cleared  nine  hundred  acres  of  land  .  .  . 
made  all  his  improvements,  consisting  of  a  dwelling  house, 
kitchen,  washhouse,  storehouse,  office,  smokehouse,  the  nec- 
essary negro  houses  for  servants'  houses  about  his  dwell- 
ing, weaving,  ice  and  poultry  houses,  a  gin  house  forty 
by  sixty  feet,  a  building  forty  feet  square  with  driving 


39Publications  of  the  North  Carolina  Historical  Commission,  I,  p. 
245. 

4°Nashville  Banner,  November  16,  1833. 


76  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

power  attached,"  from  which  was  propelled  the  following 
machinery:  a  flouring  mill  which  ground  and  bolted  from 
seventy  to  eighty  bushels  of  wheat  per  day,  a  corn  mill  which 
ground  from  ninety  to  one  hundred  bushels  of  corn  per  day, 
a  knife  that  cut  food  for  his  stock,  a  corn  sheller,  a  wheat 
thresher,  with  a  300-bushel  capacity  per  day  for  wheat  and 
200  bushels  for  rye,  a  saw  mill  that  cut  from  one  to  two 
thousand  feet  of  lumber  per  day;  "barns,  stables,  cribs, 
overseer's  home,  negro  cabins,  and  outhouses."41  This 
planter  furnished  the  flour  for  his  family  and  negroes  and 
sold  a  surplus  to  cotton  planters  sufficient  to  pay  the  cost 
of  his  machinery  and  the  salary  of  his  overseer.  He  raised 
all  the  live  stock  that  the  plantation  needed,  and  sold  im- 
mense quantities  of  horses,  mules,  cattle,  sheep,  and  swine. 

His  capital  increased  at  the  rate  of  169  per  cent  per  an- 
num, yet  "he  never  made  a  speculation  of  any  kind  what- 
ever during  all  this  time  of  prosperity,  to  buy  and  sell 
again.  He  lived  generously,  while  some  of  hjs  friends 
charged  him  with  extravagance  in  many  things.  His  farm- 
ing interest  did  it  all,  under  its  own  progression,  and  is 
entitled  as  a  pursuit  or  business,  after  the  support  of  him- 
self and  family,  which  under  the  peculiar  visitations  of 
Providence,  added  necessarily  to  his  expenses,  to  all  the 
credit."42 

This  planter  was  active  in  politics,  and  acted  as  admin- 
istrator of  the  estates  of  several  of  his  friends.  He  man- 
aged his  plantation  so  successfully  that  he  never  gave  cause 
for  a  change  of  overseers,  nor  did  he  have  any  trouble  with 
his  slaves.  He  was  a  type  of  the  Middle  Tennessee  plant- 
ers. 

This  planter  was  Mark  C.  Cockrill.  He  was  famous  for 
the  grade  of  wool  that  he  grew.  He  exhibited  a  wool  at  the 
World's  Fair  in  London  that  for  its  texture,  quality,  and 
fineness  excelled  the  wool  from  Saxony,  from  which  the 
best  English  broadcloths  have  been  made.  He  returned 

^Comptroller's  Report  for  1855-6,  p.  432. 
*2lbid.,  p.  433. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  77 

with  the  premium,  certificates,  and  medals  to  be  still  fur- 
ther rewarded  by  the  legislature  of  his  own  state  with  a 
gold  medal  for  his  enterprise  and  the  prosperity  he  had 
brought  to  the  wool-growers  of  the  state.43 

There  were  equally  famous  public-spirited  cotton  plant- 
ers of  West  Tennessee,  Pope,  Holmes,  Poynor,  and  Bond/ 
planters  of  Fayette  County  and  Shelby  County,  at  this 
same  World's  Fair,  who  changed  the  classification  and 
commercial  character  of  American  cottons.  They  were  able 
to  place  Tennessee  cotton  next  to  the  Georgia  Sea  Island, 
giving  it  the  highest  grade  of  upland  cotton.  This  meant 
considerable  wealth  to  Tennessee.  Both  Pope  and  Holmes 
received  medals  at  the  fair.  These  planters,  in  cooperation 
with  David  Park,  a  cotton  factor  of  Memphis,  distributed 
among  several  factories  of  the  East  a  large  amount  of 
Tennessee  cotton  to  be  experimented  with,  in  order  to  test 
its  superior  grade.  This  gave  Tennessee  cotton  a  great 
reputation,  and  made  Memphis  a  joint  distributing-point 
for  the  sale  of  cotton.  Cotton  began  to  come  up  the  Mis- 
sissippi to  Memphis  to  be  distributed  over  the  entire  world. 
This  was  the  beginning  of  the  movement  that  has  finally 
made  Memphis  the  greatest  inland  cotton  market  in  the 
world. 

Comparing  these  cotton  planters  with  the  Middle  Ten- 
nessee planter  referred  to  above,  James  C.  Coggesball,  the 
author  of  this  paper,  says,  "I  must  certainly  be  permitted  to 
speak  as  to  the  circumstances  of  several  whose  success  sur- 
passes his  in  a  four-fold  extent."44  "And  just  here,"  he 
says,  "permit  me  to  add  as  my  opinion  that  there  is  not  to 
be  found  a  location  in  the  United  States  where  a  farming 
community,  taking  them  as  a  body,  is  as  independent  and 
intelligent  as  they  are  in  the  western  district.  The  public 
days  at  the  county  seats  exhibit  but  few  scenes  of  impro- 
priety emanating  from  them,  while  the  sheriff's  and  con- 
stable's advertisements  seldom  have  reference  to  their 
estates."44 


43 Comptroller's  Report  for  1855-6,  p.  434. 


78  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

The  planters  of  Tennessee  realized  that  slavery  was  prof- 
itable, and  were  jealous  of  all  forces  that  threatened  its  ex- 
istence. They  knew  that  the  cotton  system  depended  on 
slave  labor.  The  slaveholding  sections  of  the  state  were  the 
strong  supporters  of  colonization  societies,  not  in  the  sense 
of  anti-slavery,  but  as  a  protection  to  slavery.  "The  ex- 
istence of  colored  freedom  in  the  midst  of  a  slave  popula- 
tion," said  their  petitions,  "has  a  tendency  to  impair  the 
value  and  utility  of  that  description."45  It  will  cause  "those 
who  might  have  considered  bondage  as  one  of  the  decrees 
of  Fate,  or  provisions  of  superior  power,  imposed  upon  their 
sable  race,  where  all  were  placed  in  a  like  condition  ;  *,> 
to  view  with  jealousy  and  discontent  the  elevation  of  some 
of  their  own  family  to  a  grade  so  far  above  their  reach."46 
This  memorial  suggested  the  expediency  of  abolishing  col- 
ored freedom,  which  was  actually  attempted  in  the  later 
fifties. 

"The  farmer  should  remember,"  said  Coggesball,47  "that 
he  has  not  merely  farmers'  duties  to  attend  to,  but  that, 
as  a  slaveholder,  and  as  a  member  of  society,  he  has  per- 
sonal and  political  rights  to  watch  over  and  protect.  Will 
he  look  at  the  assembled  combinations  that  are  against  him ; 
at  the  encroachments  upon  his  homestead,  who  are  advanc- 
ing with  torch  in  hand  and  fanatic  cry  of  freedom,  even 
at  the  price  of  extermination  of  the  white  race  of  slave- 
holders? And  see  that  they  are  headed  by  the  pulpit,  com- 
posed of  its  three  thousand  clergy,  with  the  anti-Christ  mo- 
tive of  a  Judas  Iscariot  marked  upon  their  physiognomy, 
and  instigated  by  the  price  of  thirty  shekels  of  silver,  from 
England's  commercial  schemers,  swearing  in  their  fanatical 
zeal  that  the  Bible  itself  is  not  the  Word  of  God,  they  rec- 
ognize in  the  establishment  and  the  sustaining  of  this  re- 
lation, and  reading  their  homilies  on  the  other  side  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  to  the  mob  collections  from  the 
purlieus  of  their  cities,  who,  like  themselves  aspire  to  the 

^Comptroller's  Report  for  1855-6,  p.  435. 

45Memorial  from  the  Cononization  Society  of  Tennessee,  1832 
(State  Archives). 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  79 

distinction  given  to  the  Beecher  family,  by  some  way,  who 
lately  discovered  that  in  this  world  there  were  three  distinct 
classes  of  people,  to-wit:  the  saint,  the  sinner,  and  the 
Beecher  family." 

As  the  pressure  became  more  intense,  the  planters  be- 
came more  intolerant  of  any  discussion  on  the  slavery  ques- 
tion. The  conclusion  of  CoggesbalPs  discussion  gives  the 
frame  of  mind  that  most  of  the  slaveholders  had  acquired 
by  1860.  "For  myself,"  he  said,  "my  relation  to  slavery  is 
one  that  I  allow  no  man,  even  my  neighbor,  who  is  a  non- 
slaveholder,  to  counsel  me  respecting.  So  sinister  and 
heartless  has  the  northern  public  become,  they  but  elucidate 
the  fact  that  there  is  no  tyranny  like  that  of  the  full-blooded 
fanatic.  I  have  no  missionary  ground  in  my  heart  for  them 
to  reach;  my  duty  is  a  responsible  one.  God  and  my  coun- 
try recognize  it,  and  I  care  not  what  others  think  of  me  re- 
specting it.  I  believe  that  slavery  is  a  blessing  to  the  slave 
in  the  largest  extent,  produced  by  the  wisdom  of  God,  and 
retained  as  such  by  his  overruling  providence,  and  that  the 
Christian  slaveholder  is  the  true  friend  of  the  black  man."47 

^Comptroller's  Report  for  1855-6,  p.  439. 


CHAPTER  IV 

ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETIES 

The  attitude  of  the  people  of  Tennessee  toward  the  negro 
expressed  itself  not  only  in  legislation  and  judicial  decision, 
but  also  in  organized  societies,  such  as  manumission  and 
colonization  societies,  in  the  churches  and  in  an  abolition 
literature  that  is  unique  in  American  history.  It  is  the 
purpose  of  this  chapter  to  give  the  organzation  and  work  of 
the  manumission  and  colonization  societies. 

The  abolition  forces  made  a  determined  effort  to  abolish 
slavery  in  the  constitutional  convention  of  1796,  and,  fail- 
ing in  this,  they  straightway  decided  to  establish  anti- 
slavery  societies.  There  is  some  doubt  as  to  when  the  first 
manumission  society  was  organized  in  Tennessee.  It  is 
clear  that  an  effort  was  made  to  organize  such  a  society  in 
1797.  The  Knoxville  Gazette  of  January  23,  1797,  pub- 
lished a  letter  from  Thomas  Embree  in  which  it  is  stated 
that  a  number  of  the  citizens  of  Washington  and  Greene 
counties  were  to  meet  in  March,  1797  and  organize  abolition 
societies  patterned  after  those  of  Philadelphia,  Baltimore, 
Richmond,  and  Winchester.1  The  purpose  of  the  society 
was  to  work  for  a  more  liberal  basis  of  emancipation  and 
for  complete  abolition  as  soon  as  the  slaves  by  education 
could  be  prepared  for  it.  Joshua  W.  Caldwell,  aufhor  of 
The  Constitutional  History  of  Tennessee,  claims  that  either 
a  Tennessee  Manumission  Society  was  organized  in  1809,  or 
that  the  one  mentioned  above  was  still  in  existence.2  It  is 
not  corroborated  by  historical  evidence  that  there  was  or- 
ganized a  manumission  society  in  Tennessee  in  either  1797 
or  1809. 

There  was  a  preliminary  organization  of  an  anti-slavery 
society  in  December,  1814,  at  the  home  of  Elihu  Swain,  the 
father-in-law  of  Charles  Osborn,  who  was  the  moving  spirit 


Knoxville  Gazette,  January  23,  1797. 
2American  Historical  Review,  V,  599. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  81 

of  the  organization.3  Rachel  Swain,  later  Rachel  Davis, 
a  daughter  of  Elihu  Swain,  said  she  was  present  at  the 
organizing  of  the  society.3  The  temporary  organization 
was  made  permanent  at  the  first  session  of  the  society,  held 
at  Lost  Creek  meeting  house,  Jefferson  County,  Tennessee, 
February  25,  1815.4 

At  this  first  meeting,  the  society  was  given  the  name  of 
the  Tennessee  Society  for  Promoting  the  Manumission  of 
Slaves,  and  a  constitution  was  adopted.  The  constitution 
consisted  of  a  preamble  and  four  aricles.5  The  motto  of  the 


3Indiana  Historical  Society  Publication,  Vol.  12,  p.  236. 

Publication  of  Vanderbilt  Southern  Historical  Society,  No.  2,  p.  11. 

5"We,  whose  names  are  hereunto  subscribed,  having  met  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  into  consideration  the  case  of  the  people  of  color 
held  in  bondage  in  an  highly  favored  land,  are  of  opinion  that  their 
case  calls  aloud  for  the  attention  and  sympathy  of  Columbia's  free 
born  sons,  and  for  their  exertions  in  endeavoring,  by  means  calculated 
to  promote  and  preserve  the  good  of  government  to  procure  for  that 
oppressed  part  of  the  community  that  inestimable  jewel,  freedom,,  the 
distinguishing  glory  of  our  country;  without  which  all  other  enjoy- 
ments of  life  must  become  insignificant." 

"And  while  we  highly  esteem  the  incomparable  Constitution  of  our 
country,  for  maintaining  this  great  truth  'That  freedom  is  the  natural 
right  of  all  men,  we  desire  that  the  feelings  of  our  countrymen  may  be 
awakened,  and  they  stimulated  to  use  every  lawful  exertion  in  their 
power  td  advance  that  glorious  day  wherein  all  may  enjoy  their  nat- 
ural birthright.  As  we  conceive  this  the  way  to  ensure  to  our  country 
the  blessings  of  heaven,  we  think  it  expedient  to  form  into  a  society, 
to  be  known  by  the  name  of  the  "Tennessee  Society  for  Promoting 
the  Manumission  of  Slaves"  and  adopt  the  following: 

CONSTITUTION 
Article   I 

Each  member  to  have  an  advertisement  in  the  most  conspicuous 
part  of  his  house,  in  the  following  words,  viz. :  Freedom  is  the  natural 
right  of  all  men;  I  therefore  acknowledge  myself  a  member  of  the 
Tennessee  Society  for  Promoting  the  Manumission  of  Slaves. 

Article  II 

That  no  member  vote  for  governer,  or  any  legislator,  unless  we  be- 
lieve him  to  be  in  favor  of  emancipation. 


82  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

society  was,  "That  freedom  is  the  natural  right  of  all  men," 
and  each  member  displayed  a  placard  to  this  effect  in  some 
conspicuous  place  in  his  home.  The  society  went  at  once 
into  politics  by  pledging  its  members  to  vote  for  only  those 
candidates  for  office  in  the  state  government  who  favored 
emancipation. 

There  were  several  anti-slavery  societies  organized  in 
Tennessee  during  this  same  year.  They  soon  discovered 
the  unity  of  their  purpose  and  decided  in  1815  to  federate. 
For  this  purpose,  these  societies  held  a  general  convention 
at  Lost  Creek  Meeting  House  of  Friends6  in  Greene  County, 
November  21,  1815,  and  organized  the  Tennessee  Manumis- 
sion Society  on  a  federated  basis.  There  were  twenty-two 
branches  of  this  society.7  By  1827,  there  were  twenty-five 
anti-slavery  societies  in  Tennessee,  and  130  in  the  United 
States.  Of  this  number,  one  hundred  and  six  were  in  the 
Southern  States,  Tennessee  ranking  second  in  the  list.8 
The  Tennessee  society  numbered  one  thousand  members.9 
Its  officers  were  a  president,  vice-president,  secretary,  and 
treasurer.  At  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Elihu  Embree,  a  corn- 
Article  III 

That  we  convene  twelve  times  a  year  at  Lost  Creek  meeting-house ; 
the  first  on  the  llth  of  the  3rd  month  next;  which  meeting  shall  pro- 
ceed to  appoint  a  president,  clerk  and  treasurer,  who  shall  continue 
in  office  for  twelve  months. 

Article  IV 

The  requisite  qualifications  of  our  members  are  true  republican 
principle,  patriotic,  and  in  favor  of  emancipation;  and  that  no  im- 
moral character  be  admitted  into  the  society  as  a  member." — P.  of  V. 
S.  H.  S.,  No.  2,  p.  12. 

6The  Friends  were  the  moving  spirit  in  the  organization  of  these 
early  societies. 

7The  Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation,  IV,  184. 

8These  societies  were  distributed  as  follows;  8  in  Virginia;  11  in 
Maryland;  2  in  Delaware;  2  in  District  of  Columbia;  8  in  Kentucky; 
25  in  Tennessee,  and  50  in  North  Carolina.  Poole,  William  Frederick, 
Anti-Slavery  Opinion  before  1800,  p.  72. 

9The  Genius,  October  13,  1827. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  83 

mittee  of  inspection  was  provided  to  censor  the  publications 
of  the  society.10  The  dues  of  this  society  were  12i/2  cents 
per  year.11 

The  qualifications  for  membership  were  republicanism, 
patriotism,  abolitionism,  and  morality.  The  society  held  its 
annual  meetings  at  Lost  Creek  Meeting  House.  Its  work 
consisted  in  memorializing  legislatures  and  congresses,  pro- 
tecting runaway  negroes,  fostering  the  spirit  of  manumis- 
sion, addressing  the  churches  on  slaveholding  and  opposing 
the  domestic  and  foreign  slave  trade.12 

The  society  repeatedly  memorialized  Congress  on  the 
subject  of  slavery.  These  memorials  prayed  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  the  prohibition  of  the 
interstate  slave  trade  and  separation  of  families,  the  pro- 
scription of  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  finally  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  United  States.13  These  petitions  were 
presented  by  Tennessee  congressmen,  and  referred  to  the 
judiciary  committee,  which  never  reported  on  them.14 

In  1821,  the  society  petitioned  the  state  legislature  to 
grant  easier  terms  for  manumission,  to  establish  a  plan  of 
gradual  emancipation,  to  urge  upon  those  owning  slaves 
to  teach  them  the  Scriptures,  and  to  prohibit  "the  inhuman 
practice  of  separating  husbands  and  wives,  within  the  lim- 
its of  this  state."15 

The  legislative  committee  to  which  this  memorial  was  re- 
ferred dealt  with  it  frankly.  It  advocated  easier  terms  for 
manumission,  but  desired  to  restrict  them  to  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  young,  healthy  slave  in  order  to  prevent  avari- 
cious masters  from  freeing  the  aged  slaves  who  would 
become  a  charge  to  society.  It  believed  that  the  state  should 
devise  a  policy  for  freeing  the  slaves  unborn,  and  recom- 
mended the  passing  of  a  law,  prohibiting  the  separation  of 

"P.  of  V.  S.  H.  S.,  No.  2,  p.  13. 

^Article  2,  Constitution  of  the  Tennessee  Manumission  Society. 
12Temple,  O.  P.,  East  Tennessee  and  the  Civil  War,  109ff. 
13Annals  of  Congress,  17th  Congress,  1st  Session,  pp.  642  and  709; 
the  18th  Congress,  1st  Session,  p.  931. 
14The  Genius,  I,  142;  Ibid.,  IV,  66. 
15Ibid.,  I,  173-4. 


84  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

husband  and  wife.    The  committee  reported  unanimously, 
but  the  senate  laid  its  report  on  the  table.16 

James  Jones,  president  of  the  society,  stated  at  its  eighth 

16This  is  one  of  the  most  important  documents  in  the  history  of 
slavery  in  Tennessee.  The  committee  reported,  "that  they  have  had 
that  subject  (slavery)  under  examination,  and  on  the  first  proposi- 
tion contained  in  said  petition,  to-wit:  allowing  masters,  convinced  of 
the  impropriety  of  holding  the  man  of  color  in  slavery,  to  emancipate 
such,  on  terms  not  involving  masters  or  their  estates,  provided  such 
slave  offered  for  emancipation  is  in  a  situation  to  provide  for  him  or 
herself,  express  it  as  their  opinion  that  it  is  consistent  with  the  rights 
of  freemen,  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  to  have,  and  exercise 
the  power  of  yielding  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  conscience  and  hu- 
manity. 

"That  in  all  cases  where  chance  or  fortune  has  given  the  citizen 
dominion  over  any  part  of  the  human  race,  no  matter  of  what  hue 
and  whose  reflection  has  taught  him  to  consider  an  exercise  of  that 
dominion  inhuman,  unconstitutional,  or  against  the  religion  of  his 
country,  ought  to  be  permitted  to  remove  that  yoke  without  the  tram- 
mels at  present  imposed  by  law. 

"Your  committee  beg  leave  to  state  that,  while  they  feel  disposed 
to  amend  the  law  and  guarantee  the  right,  they  wish  it  not  to  be 
perverted  to  the  use  of  the  unfeeling  and  avaricious,  who,  to  rid 
themselves  of  the  burden  of  supporting  the  aged  slave  whose  life  has 
been  devoted  to  the  service  of  such  a  master  would  seize  the  oppor- 
tunity of  casting  such  on  the  public  for  support. 

"Your  committee  beg  leave  further  to  state  that  very  few  cases 
have  occurred  where  slaves  freed  in  the  State  of  Tennessee  have  be- 
come a  county  charge. 

"Your  committee,  therefore,  recommend  an  amendment,  granting 
the  prayer  of  the  petition,  so  far  as  respects  the  young  healthy  slave, 
not  likely  to  become  a  county  charge. 

"On  the  second  point,  your  committee  are  of  opinion  that  it  is 
worthy  the  consideration  of  the  legislature,  to  examine  into  the 
policy  of  providing  for  the  emancipation  of  those  yet  unborn . . . 
Liberty  to  the  slave  has  occupied  the  research  of  the  moral  and 
philosophical  statesmen  of  our  own  and  other  countries;  a  research 
into  this  principle  extends  wide  into  the  evil,  whose  root  is  perhaps 
dangerously  entwined  with  the  liberty  of  the  only  free  governments. 
On  a  subject  so  interesting,  it  cannot  be  improper  to  inquire;  there- 
fore, as  a  question  of  policy,  it  is  recommended  to  the  sober  consid- 
eration of  the  General  Assembly. 

"Your  committee  also  advise  a  provision  by  law,  if  the  same  be 
practicable,  to  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  the  separating  husband 
and  wife."— The  Genius,  I,  71-2. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  85 

annual  meeting  that  the  objects  of  the  society  should  be: 
First,  to  obtain  the  support  of  the  people  to  the  abolition 
propaganda  because  the  people  rule ;  second,  to  establish  as 
many  branches  as  possible  to  obtain  this  end ;  third,  to  rec- 
ommend to  all  friends  of  humanity  to  use  their  suffrage  to 
place  -men  in  the  legislature  who  would  support  gradual 
emancipation.17 

At  the  tenth  annual  meeting  of  the  society,  a  memorial 
was  addressed  to  the  churches  of  Tennessee  which  showed 
the  inconsistency  of  religion  and  slavery  and  bitterly  ar- 
raigned society  for  the  crime  of  slavery.  This  criticism 
of  the  church,  society,  and  government  in  this  petition  was 
the  strongest  condemnation  of  slavery  made  by  the  society 
during  its  existence.18 

17The  Genius,  II,  24. 

18This  memorial  was  as  follows: 

"The  Manumission  Society  of  Tennessee  wish  to  address  you  again 
on  the  important  subject  of  slavery.  In  calling  your  attention  to  this 
subject,  in  which  we  feel  a  most  serious^  concern,  we  wish  to  use  that 
sincerity  and  candor  which  become  friends  travelling  through  a  world 
of  error  and  sin,  in  which  they  are  to  make  preparation  for  eternity. 
We  therefore  beg  you  to  pause  a  moment,  and  let  us  compare  the 
principles  of  slavery,  as  it  exists  among  us,  with  the  holy  religion 
we  profess,  and  the  divine  precepts  of  our  common  Lord.  What  is 
our  religion?  Our  Divine  Master  has  told  us,  that  the  most  prom- 
inent features  were,  to  love  the  Lord  our  God,  with  all  our  heart, 
mind,  soul,  and  strength,  and  to  love  our  neighbors  as  ourselves.  And 
it  is  also  written  in  His  holy  book,  as  a  rule  of  duty,  to  honor  all  and 
to  abound  in  love  one  to  another.  We  are  also  there  taught  to  con- 
sider the  whole  human  race  as  one  family,  descended  from  the  same 
original  parent;  and  that  God  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  who 
dwell  upon  the  earth.  We  are  also  taught,  that  as  all  mankind  are 
equally  free,  for  one  man  to  deprive  another  of  liberty  and  to  keep 
him  in  that  condition,  is  an  enormous  crime.  And  he  that  stealeth 
a  man  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely 
be  put  to  death.  Exodus,  XXI,  16.  The  man  stealer  is  enrolled  by 
the  apostle  amongst  the  other  notorious  criminals..  Tim.,  I,  10. 

"Now  let  us  ask  what  slavery  is,  as  it  stands  between  Africa, 
America,  and  the  Supreme  Judge  of  Nations.  Is  it  not  injustice, 
cruelty,  robbery,  and  murder,  reduced  to  a  practical  system?  The 
dreadful  answer  is,  that  hosts  of  the  disembodied  spirits  of  unof- 
fending Africans  have  taken  their  flight  to  eternity  from  the  dark 
holds  of  American  slave  ships,  and  their  last  quivering  groans  have 


86  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

The  minutes  of  the  eleventh  annual  meeting  in  1825  show 
that  the  society  was  still  active.  There  were  at  this  time 
twenty-two  branches,  eleven  of  which  reported  a  member- 
ship of  570. 19  This  meeting  was  well  attended  and  ap- 
pointed a  committee,  consisting  of  James  Jones,  Thomas 
Hodge,  Jr.,  and  Thomas  Doane  to  begin  the  publication  of  a 
quarterly  journal  to  be  called  the  manumission  journal.20 
Thomas  Hodge,  Jr.  was  made  editor  of  the  journal,  which 
was  to  be  published  at  Greenville,  Tennessee.  The  society 
drafted  memorials  to  Congress  and  to  the  churches  of  the 
United  States,  and  appointed  James  Lundy  as  delegate  to 
the  Annual  Convention  of  the  American  Abolition  Societies 
in  Philadelphia.20 

Interest  in  the  society  seems  to  have  begun  to  wane  after 
1825.  The  convention  in  1826  was  not  well  attended.  Only 
ten  branches  were  represented  at  this  meeting.21  The  state 
was  beginning  to  be  alarmed  at  the  increased  number  of 
free  negroes  resulting  from  emancipation  and  immigra- 
tion. 

The  thirteenth  meeting  in  1827  was  a  rather  important 
one.  It  sent  the  usual  memorials  to  Congress,  legislature 
of  Tennessee,  and  to  the  churches  of  the  country.22  It  made 
expulsion  a  penalty  for  aiding  slaves  to  escape.  The  branch 
organizations  were  to  try  those  accused  of  misconduct.  This 

descended  on  high  to  call  for  vengeance  on  the  murderous  deed,  that 
stained  the  earth  and  ocean  with  their  blood.  When  we  ask  what 
slavery  is,  we  are  answered  by  the  civil  wars  existing  in  Africa — 
by  the  thousands  slain  by  the  bands  of  their  brethren — by  the  cap- 
tive's last  look  of  anguish  at  his  native  shore — and  by  the  blood  and 
groans  of  the  sufferers  on  the  seas — by  the  sighs  of  men  driven  like 
herds  of  cattle  to  market — by  the  tears  that  furrow  the  woe-worn 
cheek  of  sorrow,  as  oppression  moulders  down  the  African's  system." 
The  Genius,  IV,  73-4. 

19The  branches  were:  The  Greene  Branch,  Maryville,  Bethesda, 
Hickory  Valley,  Nolachucky,  Washington,  French  Broad,  Dumplin 
Creek,  Jefferson  Creek,  Holston,  Sullivan,  Powell  Valley,  Knoxville, 
Colter's  Station,  Turkey  Creek,  Chestoody.  The  Genius,  IV,  204. 

2°The  Genius,  IV,  185. 

21Ibid.,  VI,  160. 

22Ibid.,  VII,  194. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  87 

regulation  indicates  pernicious  activities  on  the  part  of  some 
members  of  the  society. 

This  meeting  was  noted  for  an  address  made  by  Thomas 
Doane  in  which  he  made  a  very  serious  criticism  of  slavery. 
He  said  : 

Slavery  is  unfriendly  ,  to  a  genuine  course  of 
agriculture,  turning  in  most  cases  the  fair  and 
fertile  face  of  nature  into  barren  sterility.  It  is 
the  bane  of  manufacturing  enterprise  and  inter- 
nal improvements;  injurious  to  mechanical  pros- 
perity; oppressive  and  degrading  to  the  poor  and 
laboring  classes  of  the  white  population  that  live 
in  its  vicinity;  the  death  of  religion;  and  finally, 
it  is  a  volcano  in  disguise,  and  dangerous  to  the 
safety  and  happiness  of  any  government  on  earth 
when  it  is  tolerated.23 

This  convention  also  appointed  a  committee  of  which 
James  Jones  was  chairman  to  prepare  a  report  to  the 
American  Convention.  Jones,  in  this  report,  expressed  pri- 
marily his  own  feelings  and  showed  his  earnestness  as  one 
of  the  greatest  anti-slavery  leaders  of  his  time.  He  urged 
religious  and  benevolent  societies  and  all  friends  of  freedom 
throughout  the  Union  to  join  in  petitioning  Congress  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  to  use  its 
power  of  regulating  interstate  commerce  to  suppress  the 
interstate  slave  traffic.  "It  is  time/'  he  said,  "for  people  to 
be  aroused  to  their  duty,  and  ask  their  rulers  to  abolish 
such  things  in  plain,  explicit  terms."24 

Jones  not  only  saw  the  injury  that  slavery  was  causing 
to  society,  socially,  economically,  and  politically,  but  he  also 
foresaw  what  the  final  catastrophe  would  be  unless  some 
constructive  policy  of  abolition  was  instituted  for  the  na- 
tion. He  said  in  a  letter  in  1830  to  Benjamin  Lundy:  "For 
if  Congress  will  not  listen  to  the  voice  of  humanity  until 
destruction  cometh,  I  wish  posterity  to  know  that  some 
among  us  now  are  desirous  to  have  justice  done."25 


Genius,  VIII,  93. 
24Minutes  of  American  Convention  for  1828,  p.  27. 
Genius,  XI,  3. 


88  University^  of  Texas  Bulletin 

Several  branches  of  the  society  were  active  in  creating 
sentiment  for  emancipation  by  means  of  public  meetings, 
addresses,  and  memorials  to  various  organizations.  The 
Jefferson  Branch,  located  in  Jefferson  County,  the  seat  of 
the  state  society,  led  the  work  in  the  local  societies.  In 
1821,  in  an  address  delivered  before  the  Jefferson  Society, 
the  speaker  took  the  following  optimistic  attitude  toward 
manumission : 

When  we  compare  the  public  sentiment  relative 
to  slavery  at  this  period,  with  what  it  was,  even  a 
few  years  ago,  have  we  not  reason  to  hope  that  a 
propitious  epoch  is  now  at  hand  for  benevolent 
humanity  to  exert  itself  in  the  cause  of  the  afflicted 
innocence?  Is  not  the  evil  which  avarice  and  cu- 
pidity have  drawn  around  our  senses,  gradually 
vanishing?  Is  not  the  monster  of  cruelty  beheld 
more  generally  in  his  native  form?  We  hail  the 
increase  of  this  sentiment  as  the  beginning  of  au- 
spicious* consequence  both  to  ourselves  and  the  un- 
fortunate sons  of  Africa.  We  hope  that  the  -senti- 
ment will  spread  until  we  become  a  willing  people 
to  forsake  our  iniquity,  and  let  the  sufferers  go; 
not  by  a  miraculous  interposition  do  we  look  for 
it  to  be  accomplished  with  precipitation;  but  by 
such  means  as  deliberate  counsel  and  the  direction 
of  Providence  may  dictate,  to  be  conformable  with 
Justice  to  those  who  claim  their  services,  and  to 
the  circumstances  of  those  in  servitude,  by  alle- 
viating their  wretched  condition,  and  instilling 
into  their  minds  such  instruction  as  may  prepare 
them  for  assuming  their  proper  rank  and  station 
among  rational  beings,  when  the  universal  prin- 
ciples of  propriety,  justce,  and  equity,  shall  sanc- 
tion it.26 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  interest  in  manu- 
mission began  to  wane  in  1825.  In  1827,  the  annual  con- 
vention of  the  state  society  was  poorly  attended.  No  rec- 
ords of  its  life  and  activities  after  1830  have  been  found.27 
A  definite  change  of  policy  toward  the  free  negro  was  being 

2«The  Genius,  I,  173. 

27Tennessee  History  Magazine,  I,  272. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  89 

formulated  during  this  period  and  it  found  expression  in 
the  Exclusion  Act  of  1831.  This  change  of  policy  of  the 
state  meant  the  death  of  manumission  as  an  organized  move- 
ment. 

There  were  also  some  independent  anti-slavery  societies 
in  the  state.  November  21,  1920,  the  Humane  Protecting 
Society  was  organized  in  Greene  County.  Its  purpose  was 
to  extend  the  rights  of  man  to  all,  irrespective  of  race  and 
color,  and  protect  those  "unlawfully  oppressed."  The  qual- 
ifications for  membership  were  good  moral  character, 
friendship  toward  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
and  agreement  to  pay  ten  cents  on  the  hundred  dollar's 
worth  of  one's  unencumbered  estate  as  dues.28 

In  1826,  there  was  organized  at  Nashoba,  Shelby  County, 
West  Tennessee,  the  Emancipating  Labor  Society,  by  Miss 
Frances  Wright  of  Scotland.  In  1825,  she  bought  eight 
tracts  of  land,  aggregating  1,940  acres,  lying  on  both  sides 
of  Wolf  River,  in  the  vicinity  of  Germantown  and  Ridge- 
way,  paying  $6,000  for  the  land.29  The  society  was  man- 
aged by  a  board  of  trustees  under  certain  restrictions.31 

Admission  to  the  society  was  to  be  strictly  individual,  ex- 
cept in  case  of  children  under  fourteen  years  of  age,  who 
might  be  admitted  with  one  or  both  parents,  reared  and  ed- 
ucated until  twenty  years  of  age,  and  emancipated  at  twenty- 
one.  The  society  planned  to  buy  slaves  from  those  people 


Genius,  IV,  69. 

29Goodspeed,  802.  Cf.  The  Genius,  VI,  177,  which  gives  the  fol- 
lowing trustees:  George  Flower,  James  Richardson,  Frances  Wright, 
Camilla  Wright,  and  Richardson  Whitbey. 

30Goodspeed,  802.  The  trustees  consisted  of  General  Lafayette, 
William  McClure,  Robert  Owen,  Camille  Wright,  Cadwallader,  D. 
Flanary,  and  James  Richardson,  who,  together  with  their  successor? 
were  to  hold  these  lands  in  perpetual  trust  for  the  negro  race,  and 
\vere  subject  to  the  following  limitations: 

(1)  A  school  for  colored  children  was  always  to  be  maintained, 

(2)  All  slaves  emancipated  from  the  society  were  to  be  sent  out 
of  the  United  States. 

(3)  The  Trustees  were  never  to  let  their  number  fall  below  five, 
three  of  whom  should  constitute  a  quorum. 

(4)  Coadjutors,  with  unanimous  consent  of"  trustees,  might  be  ap- 
pointed, if  they  had  lived  six  months  on  the  lands  of  Nashoba. 


90  University;  of  Texas  Bulletin 

who  wished  to  emancipate  their  slaves  but  who  felt  that 
they  could  not  sustain  such  expense.  The  society  did  not 
buy  old  men,  women,  and  children ;  but  would  take  them  and 
support  them.  In  1827,  Miss  Wright  presented  the  society 
with  eight  slaves  and  the  work  of  a  family  of  females.31 

The  economics  of  the  scheme  were  typical  of  the  com- 
munistic philosophers  of  the  period.  The  slaves  were 
charged  with  the  capital  invested  on  which  they  were  ex- 
pected to  pay  six  per  cent  interest;  the  farm  equipment, 
consisting  of  farming  implements  and  live  stock,  was  loaned 
them  on  the  condition  that  they  constantly  replace  the  same 
from  their  earnings.  One-half  of  the  produce  of  the  plan- 
tation was  placed  to  their  credit,  and  purchased  by  the  so- 
ciety at  the  market  price.  They  shared  equally  with  the 
society  the  proceeds  derived  from  the  sale  of  all  live  stock 
raised  on  the  plantation.  By  a  system  of  weekly  accounts 
of  income  and  expenses,  they  knew  their  financial  status  at 
the  end  of  each  week.  As  soon  as  any  slave  had  a  credit 
equal  to  what  the  society  had  paid  for  him,  he  was  eman- 
cipated. If  he  wanted  to  leave  the  state  for  Hayti  or  Li- 
beria, he  was  given  the  privilege  of  remaining  in  the  society 
until  he  had  sufficient  means  to  pay  his  transportation  to 
one  of  these  colonies.32 

The  character  of  the  management  of  this  society  is  very 
interesting.  The  slaves  were  not  put  under  an  overseer 
and  lashed  to  work,  but  were  directed  in  their  work  as  if 
they  were  free  laborers.  The  idea  was  to  make  men  and 
women  who  would  voluntarily  develop  habitual  industry 
under  advice  and  encouragement,  rather  than  to  exact  labor 
from  them  by  a  decree  of  force.  They  were  to  be  fitted  for 
a  state  of  freedom  by  being  developed  into  self-governing 
men  and  women,  and  responsibility  was  substituted  for  dis- 
cipline just  as  rapidly  as  self -initiative  could  be  developed. 

The  negroes  were  fed,  clothed,  and  housed.  Those  who 
showed  any  interest  in  acquiring  information  were  taught. 
A  constant  aim  of  the  organization  was  to  improve  their 


31Goodspeed,  803. 
32The  Genius,  VI,  177. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  91 

habits  and  conduct.  The  organization's  chief  purpose  was 
to  develop  humanity,  rather  than  to  net  the  society  any  pe- 
cuniary gain.33  The  society  was  not  a  success  because  of 
Miss  Wright's  absence  in  Europe  and  the  impracticability 
of  the  plan.  The  trustees  resigned  in  1831.  Miss  Wright 
emancipated  the  slaves  and  sent  them  to  Hayti.  The  trus- 
tees redeeded  the  plantation  to  Miss  Wright  in  1832.  The 
estate  became  involved  in  court  and  some  minor  points  re- 
mained in,  controversy  as  late  as  1886.34 

A  fourth  anti-slavery  society  was  the  Moral  Religious, 
Manumission  Society  of  West  Tennessee,  which  was  organ- 
ized December  18,  1824,  at  Columbia,  Maury  County,  Ten- 
nessee.35 The  spirit  of  this  society  is  well  known  in  the 
following  extract  from  the  preamble  of  its  constitution : 

We,  the  undersigned,  having  fully  considered  the 
subject  of  Tyranny  and  Slavery  as  practiced  by 
individuals  on  their  brethren  in  our  neighborhood, 
and  elsewhere  in  America;  and  being  fully  con- 
vinced that  it  exceeds  any  other  crime  in  magni- 
tude: 

1st.  In  motive — being  moved  thereto  by  the 
"world,  flesh  and  the  devil,"  or  with  pride  and 
laziness. 

2nd.     In  the  execution,  it  is  cruel  and  unjust. 

3rd.  In  the  consequences,  ignorance,  hardness 
of  heart  and  inhumanity  are  produced.  This  ig- 
norance of  right  and  wrong  is  manifested  in  the 
words  and  actions  of  tyrant  and  slave  and  all  of 
those  who  approve  of  the  practice  in  others.  They 
go  forth  in  practical  infidelity  and  irrelisrion,  which 
tend  to  destroy  the  blessings  of  Christianity  and 
republicanism  as  they  exist  in  this  otherwise 
happly  land.36 

This  society  limited  its  membership  to  fifteen,  none  of 
whom  could  be  slaveholders.37  Any  additional  membership 
constituted  a  branch  society.  The  officers  of  the  society 

33The  Genius,  V,  366. 
34Goodspeed,  821. 
35The  Genius,  IV,  77. 
3<5Ibid.,  76. 
"Ibid.,  77. 


92  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

consisted  of  a  board  of  directors,  one  of  whom  was  desig- 
nated as  chairman.  Majority  vote  of  the  membership  de- 
termined the  policy  of  the  society  on  any  question.  No 
levy  for  funds  was  made  on  the  membership,  but  its  rev- 
enues consisted  of  contributions  and  donations.  The  di- 
rectors were  trustees  of  such  funds.  The  society  met  quar- 
terly at  the  Republican  Meeting  House  about  six  miles  from 
Columbia,  Maury  County,  Tennessee.38  One  of  these  quar- 
terly meetings  was  held  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  and  was 
regarded  as  the  annual  meeting  of  the  society.  The  con- 
stitution was  rather  elaborate,  consisting  of  twelve  articles, 
and  could  be  amended  by  the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  its 
members.39  The  policy  of  the  society  was  not  so  radical 
in  method  as  might  have  been  expected  from  the  general 
tenor  of  its  documents.  The  constitution  in  articles  6  and  7 
states  that  the  acceptance  of  Christianity  would  destroy  in 
the  tyrant  "the  will  to  enslave"  and  would  therefore  elim- 
inate personal  slavery.  It  was  the  will  of  "men  of  talents" 
to  tyrannize  that  had  to  be  controlled,  and  argument  was 
the  leading  means  to  use  to  accomplish  this  purpose.  The 
society,  therefore,  proposed  to  circulate  copies  of  "The 
Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation"  through  their  several 
communities,  the  state,  and  the  nation,  to  issue  addresses, 
to  petition  churches  and  legislative  bodies,  and  to  preach 
the  Gospel  of  humanity  to  slaveholders. 

This  society  issued  in  1824  a  memorial  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Conference  which  met  that  year  at  Columbia, 
Tennessee.  The  conference  agreed  to  the  anti-slavery  spirit 
of  the  memorial  and  to  a  cooperation  with  the  society  in  the 
realization  of  its  aims.40  March  22,  1825,  the  society  at  its 
thirtieth  quarterly  meeting  sent  an  address  to  the  Manu- 
mission Societies  of  America,  making  suggestions  for  the 
celebration  of  Fourth  of  July,  1826,  as  Jubilee  Day.41 

3*The  Genius,  IV,  143. 

3»Ibid.,  77. 

40Goodspeed,  670. 

41The  following  recommendations  were  made  in  substance: 

1.  That  all  the  manumission  societies  in  the  United   States  pro- 
claim it  as  the  Christian  American  Jubilee. 

2.  That  the  different  societies  encourage  the  keeping  of  the  day, 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  93 

The  Moral,  Religious  Manumission  Society  sent  an  ad- 
dress to  the  American  Convention  in  1826  that  was  too  rad- 
ical for  publication.42  The  society  seems  to  have  been  dis- 
solved about  1827.43 

The  manumission  societies  came  to  realize  that  the  state 
would  not  tolerate  a  large  element  of  free  negroes  within  its 
borders.  They  saw  that  their  success  was  conditioned  on 
the  colonization  of  the  free  negroes  as  rapidly  as  they  were 
emancipated.  The  Tennessee  Manumission  Society  in  its 
memorial  of  1816  to  the  churches  of  the  United  States  ad- 
vocated in  regard  to  free  negroes,  "that  a  colony  be  laid  oft" 
for  their  reception  as  they  became  free."44  The  Presby- 
terian Synod  of  Tennessee  in  session  at  the  Nashville  church 
the  following  year,  adopted  resolutions  favoring  coloniza- 
tion, and  congratulated  the  society  for  its  efforts  in  this  di- 
rection.45 A  colonization  society  seems  to  have  been  or- 


as  a  Jubilee,  by  publishing  essays,   songs,  etc.,  showing  the  utility 
thereof. 

3.  That  those  societies  celebrate  the  Fourth  of  July,  next,  with 
preaching,  prayer,  and  singing  as  a  Christian  Jubilee. 

4.  That  those  who  are  sensible  of  the  evil  of  slavery,  form  them- 
selves into  Christian  Manumission   Societies,   excluding  slaveholders 
from  their  number. 

5.  That  they   send   forth   missionaries   to   preach   the   acceptable 
year  of  the  Lord  to  slaveholders. 

6.  That  all  these  societies  establish  a  correspondence  with  each 
other  through  the  Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation.     The  Genius, 
IV,  143. 

42Minutes  of  the  American  Convention  for  1826,  p.  48. 

43Tennessee  History  Magazine,  I,  276. 

44Niles  Register,  XIV,  321. 

45"We  wish  you,  therefore,  to  know,  that  within  our  bounds  the 
public  sentiment  appears  clearly,  and  decidedly  in  your  favor,  and 
that  the  more  vigorously  and  perseveringly  you  combine  and  extend 
your  exertions  on  the  plan  you  have  adopted,  the  more  you  are  likely 
to  be  crowned  with  the  approbation  of  the  people  as  well  as  with  the 
higher  rewards  of  doing  good.  While,  then  the  heralds  of  salvation 
go  forth  in  the  name  and  strength  of  their  Divine  Master,  to  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  we  ardently  wish  that  your  exertions 
and  the  best  influence  of  all  philanthropists  may  be  united,  to  amelio- 
rate the  condition  of  human  society,  and  especially  of  its  most  de- 
graded classes,  till  liberty,  religion,  and  happiness  shall  be  the  en- 
joyment of  the  whole  family  of  man."  Tenth  Annual  Report  of 
American  Colonization  Society,  67-8. 


94  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

ganized  in  1822,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  continued 
existence.46  The  Tennessee  Manumission  Society,  in  its  re- 
port to  the  American  Convention  for  the  year  1823,  sug- 
gested that  Congress  make  an  appropriation  for  the  pur- 
chase of  a  parcel  of  land  on  the  American  continent  for  the 
colonization  of  free  negroes.47  In  1825,  the  legislature  of 
Tennessee  advised  its  senators  and  representatives  in  Con- 
gress to  use  their  influence  in  promoting  a  scheme  of  col- 
onization of  the  free  people  of  color.48  In  this  same  year, 
James  Jones,  president  of  the  Tennessee  Manumission  So- 
ciety, wrote  Benjamin  Lundy  that  he  was  much  gratified 
at  the  progress  being  made  to  colonize  the  free  people  of 
color  in  the  Haytian  Republic,49  and  he  quotes  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  Tennessee  Manumission  Society,  favoring  the 
Haytian  Republic  as  a  rendezvous  for  free  negroes.50  Two 
years  later,  the  legislature  of  Tennessee,  in  response  to  me- 
morials and  petitions  of  manumission  societies  and  churches 
again  instructed  the  Tennessee  representatives  in  Congress 
to  give  their  aid  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  in 
carrying  into  effect  a  plan  of  colonizing  the  free  people  of 
color.51  From  1816  to  1829,  there  was  constant  agitation  in 
Tennessee  for  a  colonization  society. 

In  1829  the  American  Colonization  Society  worked  out  a 
plan  for  state  societies.  The  state  societies  were  to  be  aux- 
iliaries to  the  national  society,  and  were  themselves  to  be  a 
confederacy  of  county  societies  which  in  turn  were  to  be 
composed  of  town  and  district  societies.  The  town  and  dis- 
trict societies  were  to  hold  regular  annual  meetings  and 
send  delegates  to  the  annual  meeting  of  the  state  society, 
which  was  to  be  represented  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the 

46Fifth  Annual  Report  of  American  Colonization  Society,  119. 

47Minutes  of  the  American  Convention  for  1825,  p.  18 ;  Eighth  An- 
nual Report  of  American  Society  for  Colonization  of  the  Free  People 
of  Color,  p.  39. 

48Eighth  Annual  Report  of  American  Society  for  Colonization  of 
the  Free  People  of  Color,  p.  29. 

49The  Genius,  IV,  66. 

5°Ibid.,  67. 

51  Tenth  Annual  Report  of  American  Colonization  Society  of  the 
Free  People  of  Color,  1827,  61-2. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  95 

national  society.52  In  accordance  with  this  plan  Mr.  Josiah 
F.  Polk,  agent  for  the  American  Colonization  Society  for  the 
states  of  Indiana,  Illinois,  Tennessee,  and  Alabama,  on  De- 
cember 21,  1829,  organized,  at  Nashville,  the  Tennessee 
Colonization  Society,  consisting  of  sixteen  members.  A 
president  and  one  vice-president  were  elected.  The  mem- 
bership soon  increased  to  seventy-three  and  a  fund  of  one 
hundred  dollars  was  collected.53 

The  society  held  its  first  meeting  on  January  1,  1830,  and 
elected  a  complete  set  of  officers.  Rev.  Philip  Lindsley, 
D.D.,  president  of  the  University  of  Nashville,  was  made 
president  of  the  society;  R.  H.  McEwen,  recording  secre- 
tary; Henry  A.  Wise,  corresponding  secretary;  and  Orville 
Ewing,  treasurer.  Six  vice-presidents  and  a  board  of  six 
managers,  consisting  of  prominent  citizens,  were  elected.54 
The  society  at  this  time  numbered  about  one  hundred  and 
twenty  members55  and  contained  twenty  auxiliaries.50  These 
auxiliaries  had  a  large  membership,  and  a  list  of  strong 
officers  of  the  most  prominent  people  of  the  state.  Andrew 
Jackson  was  much  interested  in  colonization.  He  was  vice- 
president  of  the  American  Colonization  Society  from  1819 
to  1822. 5T  Polk,  in  reporting  on  his  work  to  the  American 
Colonization  Society,  in  1829,  said  that  much  might  be  ex- 
pected from  the  Tennessee  Society.58  Henry  A.  Wise,  who 
was  secretary  of  the  Tennessee  Colonization  Society,  made 
a  very  flattering  report  of  its  work  to  the  national  society 
in  1830. 59  "We  may  expect,"  said  the  African  Repository, 
"benefits  of  the  most  important  character,  from  the  energy 


52Twelfth  Annual  Meeting  of  American  Colonization  Society,  1829, 
65. 

53African  Repository,  VI,  75. 

54American  Colonization  Society  Report,  VI,  178. 

^African  Repository,  VI,  75;  Ibid.,  V,  378. 

r'6American  Colonization  Society  Report,  VI,  178;  Auxiliaries  at 
Bolivar,  Somerville,  Memphis,  Covington,  Jackson,  Paris,  Clarksville, 
Columbia,  Shelbyville,  Winchester,  Murfreesboro,  Gallatin,  Knox- 
ville,  Marysville,  New  Market,  Jonesboro,  and  Kingsport. 

57 Tenth  Annual  Report  for  American  Society  for  Colonizing  the 
Free  People  of  Color,  1829,  p.  61. 

58African  Repository,  VI,  76. 


96  University^  of  Texas  Bulletin 

and  liberality  of  the  citizens  of  Tennessee.  It  cannot  be 
forgotten  that  the  legislature  of  this  state  was  among  the 
first  to  express  its  approbation  of  our  scheme,  as  meriting 
the  countenance  and  aid  of  the  National  Government."59 
"Believing  as  I  do,"  said  a  Tennessee  correspondent  of  the 
African  Repository,  "that  under  Providence  it  is  the  only 
feasible  and  judicious  plan  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of 
the  free  people  of  color  in  these  states,  and  that  it  is  a 
cause  in  which  patriotism  and  humanity,  are  largely  em- 
barked, I  shall  do  all  I  can  to  aid  its  progress ;  and  I  hear, 
with  pleasure,  of  its  continued  prosperity."60  Polk,  in  his 
report  of  1830,  states  that  "The  colored  population  is  con- 
sidered by  the  people  of  Tennessee  and  Alabama  in  general, 
as  an  immense  evil  to  the  country — but  the  free  part  of  it, 
by  all,  as  the  greatest  of  all  evils."61  A  correspondent  of 
the  African  Repository  from  Tennessee  stated  in  1831  that 
"the  colonization  movement  had  many  friends  in  Tennessee 
and  that  they  were  determined  to  make  every  possible  effort 
to  aid  the  good  cause."62 

The  society  at  its  meeting  on  November  8,  1831,  appointed 
a  committee  of  seven  to  solicit  funds  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  sending  free  negroes  to  Liberia.  A  committee  of  three 
was  appointed  to  memorialize  the  legislature  of  Tennessee  to 
make  an  appropriation  for  the  aid  of  the  society.03  The  leg- 
islature appointed  a  committee  on  colonization  to  consider 
the  petition  of  the  society,  and,  on  September  30,  1833, 
passed  two  resolutions,  requesting  this  committee  to  inves- 
tigate the  expediency  of  asking  Congress  for  an  annual  ap- 
propriation of  $100,000  and  the  general  assembly  for  $5,000 
to  aid  in  colonizing  free  negroes  in  Liberia.64  In  response 
to  this  request,  the  legislature  in  1833  passed  a  law,  giving 
ten  dollars  to  the  state  society  for  every  free  negro  sent  to 

59African  Repository,  V,  378. 

eolbid.,  379. 

eilbid.,  VI,  276. 

62lbid.,  VII,  145. 

63Ibid.,  313. 

64Ibid.,  IX,  282;  Niles  Register,  Vol.  45,  p.  182. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  97 

Liberia,  provided  that  not  more  than  $500  was  expended  in 
any  one  year.65 

The  society  held  its  annual  meeting  in  the  Hall  of  Repre- 
sentatives at  the  State  Capitol,  October  14,  1833,  and  was 
addressed  by  James  G.  Birney,  of  Alabama,  agent  of  the 
American  Colonization  Society.  "We  admire  this  institu- 
tion," said  the  Nashville  Banner,  "and  feel  the  utmost  ven- 
eration and  respect  for  the  humane  motives  of  its  founders, 
and  for  those  who  are  engaged  in  promoting  its  objects. 
It  would  afford  us  unfeigned  pleasure  to  see  all  its  generous 
designs  crowned  with  complete  success."66 

The  petitions  received  by  the  legislature  in  1832  and  1833 
from  the  State  Colonization  Society  and  its  auxiliaries  con- 
tain the  leading  reasons  advanced  by  these  societies  for 
colonization.  The  memorialists  said: 

We  take  it  to  be  self-evident  general  proposi- 
tion, that  the  benefits  of  government,  should  be  ex- 
tended alike  to  all  its  citizens;  we  are  compelled, 
however,  by  our  peculiar  circumstances,  to  violate 
this  general  principle,  by  withholding  from  that 
class  of  citizens,  the  exercise  of  many  political 
rights.  They  are  excluded  from  the  ordinary 
means  of  education,  on  the  ground  of  prejudices 
which  are  quite  natural,  and  which  will  probably 
never  be  removed.  Nor  is  it  at  all  likely  for  the 
same  reasons,  that  they  will  be  suffered  to  partici- 
pate to  any  great  extent  if  at  all,  in  the  benefits 
of  an  enlarged  system  of  common  schools,  when 
carried  into  effect  in  our  State;  they  must  there- 
fore of  necessity  remain  ignorant,  and  by  conse- 
quence vicious. 

Their  intercourse,  and  association  with  certain 
classes  of  our  white  population  is  calculated  to 
produce,  and  does  produce,  in  the  estimation  of 
your  memorialists,  serious  evils  to  the  country. 
But  the  preceding  considerations  are  light,  and 
trivial,  when  compared  with  the  injury  sustained 
by  the  slaveholder,  from  this  class  of  persons,  as 
must  be  obvious  to  every  member  of  your  hon- 
orable body ;  Nor  should  the  eminent  danger  to  our 


«5Acts  of  1833,  Ch.  64,  Sec.  1. 

66The  Nashville  Banner,  October  15,  1833. 


98  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

social  and  political  condition,  by  their  presence, 
be  overlooked,  which  arises  from  the  fact,  that 
there  neither  does,  or  can  exist,  between  them,  and 
our  white  population,  any  common  bond  of  patriot- 
ism or  private  regard.67 

The  Colonization  Society  had  an  intermittent  career.  A 
sentiment  for  colonization,  however,  persisted  in  Tennessee 
to  1860,  but  it  did  not  remain  organized.  /"There  is  some- 
thing in  this  position  of  the  cause  of  Tennessee,"  said  the 
African  Repository  in  1846,  "which  we  cannot  understand. 
There  are  many  friends  of  colonization  in  the  state.  We 
have  applications  from  many  of  the  colored  people  for  trans- 
portation to  Liberia.  Many  slaves  have  been  manumitted 
for  the  purpose  of  being  sent  there,  and  yet  little  or  no 
money  can  be  raised  for  the  advancement  of  the  enter- 
prise."68 The  next  year  the  Repository  stated  that  "We  are 
gratified  to  perceive  that  Tennessee  is  beginning  to  awake 
on  the  subject  of  African  colonization.  Between  eighty  and 
one  hundred  free  people  of  color  are  now  preparing  to  emi- 
grate from  that  state  to  Liberia.  They  wish  to  go  in  the 
vessel  that  leaves  New  Orleans  in  December  next;  and  the 
means  to  take  them  will  probably  be  raised  in  the  state.  A 
writer  in  the  Record  proposes  to  be  one  of  fifty  who  will  give 
one  hundred  dollars  each  to  purchase  territory  to  be  called 
Tennessee  in  Africa."69  The  average  expense  )f  sending  a 
free  negro  to  Liberia  and  supporting  him  for  six  months 
was  $50.  Shortly  after  the  meeting  of  1846,  the  "Roth- 
schild" sailed  from  New  Orleans  with  emigrants  from  Ten- 
nessee for  Liberia. 

A  minister  of  the  Gospel  in  Tennessee,  writing  to  the 
Repository  in  1847,  advocated  colonization  for  substantially 
the  following  reasons : 

1.     It  means  ultimately  the  complete  removal  of 
the  negro. 

e^Petitions  to  the  Legislature,  1832-33.     State  Archives. 
68African  Repository,  XXII,  39. 
"Ibid.,  XXV,  28. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  99 

2.  It  benefits  the  negro  by  placing  him  in  an  en- 
vironment that  erects  no  barriers  to  his  develop- 
ment. 

3.  It  affords  the  Christian  an  opportunity  to 
give  up  his  slaves. 

4.  It  lays  claim  to  the  noblest  feelings  of  the 
patriot,   and  of  the  whole-souled  philanthropist. 
Its  tendency  is  good,  only  good,  and  that  contin- 
ually. If  it  has  not  accomplished  all  that  its  friends 
desire,  what  agency  has  ? 

West  Tennessee  was  more  interested  in  colonization  than 
either  East  or  Middle  Tennessee.  In  fact,  colonization  was 
largely  anti-free-negro  rather  than  anti-slavery,  especially 
so  in  West  Tennessee,  where  it  was  regarded  as  a  means  of 
eliminating  the  free  negro  from  among  the  slaves.  West 
Tennessee  was  not  nearly  so  anti-slavery  in  sentiment  as 
East  Tennessee.  There  was  organized  a  separate  coloniza- 
tion society  at  Memphis,  June  12,  1848,  largely  through  the 
efforts  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  adopted  a  consti- 
tution of  six  articles,  and  elected  a  president,  vice-president, 
secretary,  treasurer,  and  twelve  directors  who  constituted 
a  board  of  managers.70  It  was  an  auxiliary  of  the  American 
Colonization  Society.  It  was  to  accomplish  its  object  "by 
the  contribution  of  money  to  the*  Parent  Society  by  the  dis- 
semination of  intelligence  concerning  the  operations,  ob- 
jects, and  prosperity  of  the  colonization  enterprise."70  A 
campaign  was  waged  in  Memphis  for  funds  to  support  the 
society.71 

The  Tennessee  Colonization  Society  was  incorporated  on 
February  8,  I860.72  Philip  Lindsey,  president  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Nashville,  was  made  its  president.  It  now  be- 
came a  corporation  and  a  body  politic.  It  could  sue  and  be 
sued,  and  was  permitted  to  receive  gifts  of  money,  goods, 
and  real  estate,  provided  the  total  value  of  such  gifts  did  not 
exceed  $10,000  in  any  one  year.  It  used  its  own  seal.72 


70Constitution  of  the  Society,  Art.  2;   African  Repository,  XXIV, 
272. 

71African  Repositary,  XXIV,  288. 
7-Acts  of  1850,  Ch.  130,  Sees.  5  and  8. 


100  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

In  1852,  Frederick  P.  Stanton,  of  Tennessee,  in  an  address 
before  the  American  Colonization  Society,  advocated  the  re- 
moval of  the  free  negroes  to  Africa.  He  believed  this  step 
would  eliminate  sectionalism  and  largely  solve  the  problem 
of  the  runaway  which,  he  thought,  was  mainly  due  to  the 
influence  of  the  free  negro  over  the  slave.  He  was  also  ap- 
prehensive of  the  political  influence  which  the  free  negroes 
might  come  to  have.73  He  maintained  that  the  national  gov- 
ernment could  remove  the  negroes  as  well  as  the  Indians.74 

Senator  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  in  a  letter  to  James  R. 
Doolittle,  October  18,  1859,  advocated  the  acquisition  by 
Congress  of  some  territory  south  of  the  United  States  to  be 
set  aside  as  an  asylum  for  emancipated  negroes.  He  be- 
lieved that  such  a  settlement  of  the  problem  would  be  a 
"concordant"  between  the  North  and  the  South.75 

In  1860,  Hon.  N.  G.  Taylor,  of  Tennessee,  in  an  address 
before  the  American  Colonization  Society,  advocated  the 
colonization  of  the  free  blacks  for  moral  and  commercial 
reasons.  He  believed  that  the  negro  should  be  returned 
to  his  native  home  and  that  Africa  colonized  by  American 

73He  quoted  from  "the  celebrated  Texas  letter  of  Robt.  J.  Walker 
published  in  1844,"  which  estimated  "that  according  to  the  rate  pf 
increase  from  1790  to  1840,  there  would  be  in  the  six  states  of  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  alone, 
no  less  than  400,000  free  blacks  in  1853;  800,000  in  1865;  and  1,600,- 
000  in  1890.  The  number  of  free  blacks  in  the  slave  states  is  even 
greater  than  in  the  free  states."  This  »;reat  number  of  free  blacks 
will  have  a  powerful  moral  influence  for  good  or  evil  upon  every 
interest  in  the  country. 

"I  refrain  from  pursuing  the  subject  further.  I  will  not  look  to 
that  dark  but  not  distant  future,  when  in  some  of  the  largest  of  the 
free  states,  this  population  shall  have  grown  powerful  in  numbers, 
demanding  the  elective  franchise,  and  when  perhaps  political  parties, 
in  the  frenzy  of  their  excitement  shall  bid  for  their  influence  and 
make  them  a  power  in  the  State.  They  may  hold  the  balance  of 
power  in  these  larger  States,  and  through  them  in  the  Union.  With 
all  their  capacity  for  mischief,  through  the  mistaken  sympathy  they 
are  calculated  to  inspire  for  the  slave  of  the  South,  it  is  impossible 
to  estimate  the  amount  of  discord  and  of  injury  they  must  inevitably 
produce  among  the  states." 

74Annual  Report  of  American  Colonization  Society  for  1852,  62-65. 

75American  Historical  Magazine,  IX,  275. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  101 

negroes  would  naturally  become  a  great  commercial  ally 
of  the  United  States.76 

It  is  seen  from  the  arguments  of  these  distinguished  Ten- 
nesseaiis  that  colonization  of  the  free  blacks  was  to  them  a 
pro-slavery,  rather  than  an  anti-slavery,  movement.  It  was 
pro-slavery  in  that  it  made  for  the  security  of  slavery,  but 
it  was  anti-slavery  in  that,  in  Tennessee  after  1831,  eman- 
cipation could  take  place  only  on  the  condition  of  removal 
from  the  state.  The  prophecy  that  the  negroes  would  re- 
ceive the  franchise  is  interesting  in  the  light  of  what  ac- 
tually happened.  Undoubtedly,  the  removal  of  the  free 
blacks  from  the  United  States  would  have  lessened  friction 
between  the  North  and  the  South. 

The  colonization  movement  in  Tennessee  was  a  failure 
either  as  an  abolition  or  as  a  colonizing  agency.  There 
were  only  287  free  negroes  sent  to  Liberia  from  Tennessee 
from  1820  to  1866.77  A  few  went  to  Hayti.  Manumission 
was  able  to  number  only  7,300  free  negroes  in  the  state  in 
1860.  Of  course,  free  negroes  were  constantly  leaving  the 
state,  especially  after  1831,  but  not  in  any  considerable 
number.  The  greatest  good  that  came  from  these  move- 
ments was  the  fostering  of  a  humanitarian  spirit  toward 
the  negro. 

7G"For,  sir,"  said  he,  "the  day  is  not  far  distant,  when,  instead  of 
scores  of  tons,  there  will  be  hundreds  and  thousands  of  tons,  floating 
from  the  shores  of  Africa  to  every  country  upon  the  face  of  the  hab- 
itable globe.  Your  report  tells  us  that  the  agriculture  of  Liberia  is 
already  in  a  flourishing  condition,  and  that  manufactures,  to  some 
extent,  are  springing  up  in  the  country."  Annual  Report  of  American 
Colonization  Society  for  1860,  28-9. 

77Annual  Report  of  the  American  Colonization  Society  for  1867, 
p.  56. 


CHAPTER  V 

RELIGIOUS  AND  SOCIAL  ASPECTS  OF  SLAVERY 

The  Protestant  churches  in  America  approached  the  ques- 
tion of  Christianizing  the  negro  very  cautiously.  There 
were  several  reasons  for  this  attitude.1  It  was  generally  be- 
lieved that  paganism  was  the  basis  of  slavery,  that  a  Chris- 
tian slave  was  a  paradox,  that  Christianizing  the  slave  would 
destroy  his  humble  qualities  and  lessen  his  economic  value, 
that  it  would  add  an  element  in  the  cost  of  maintaining  the 
institution,  that  an  idea  of  equality  prevailed  in  the  slave's 
attending  church  and  participating  in  communion  with  the 
master,  and  that  this  idea  would  add  to  the  difficulty  of 
governing  him.  Of  course,  there  was  the  social  relation 
that  came  into  the  problem  that  was  very  obnoxious.  It 
was  unpleasant  to  commune  with  a  freshly  imported  brother 
from  Africa ;  even  a  Stowe,  or  a  Garrison  would  likely  have 
hesitated. 

The  church,  being  a  human  institution,  could  not  disre- 
gard its  environment.  It  worked  its  way  out  of  all  the 
complexities  of  the  situation,  its  position  varying  somewhat 
as  to  section  and  as  to  sect.  With  the  exception  of  the 
Friends,  there  was  very  little  difference  in  the  attitude  of 
the  Protestants  toward  slavery,  until  after  the  Revolution. 
They  were,  in  general,  anti-slavery  in  sentiment,  were  will- 
ing to  baptize  slaves  and  receive  them  into  the  church.  The 
Friends  in  this  early  period  were  the  only  religious  body 
in  America  that  saw  any  inconsistency  in  Christians  hold- 
ing slaves.2  There  were  a  great  many  slave  communicants 
in  all  the  churches  prior  to  the  Revolution.3 

The  general  background  can  be  made  a  bit  more  specific 
for  Tennessee  by  particular  reference  to  the  relation  of  the 
churches  to  slavery  in  Colonial  North  Carolina  since  this 


^ernegan,   M.   W.,   Slavery   and    Conversion   in   the   Colonies,   pp. 
516-7. 

-Ibid.,  p.  576. 
3Ibid.,  p.  514. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  103 

was  the  parent  state  of  Tennessee.  The  Lord  Proprietors 
in  the  Fundamental  Constitution  of  1663  declared  that  con- 
version did  not  free  nor  enfranchise  the  negro.4  This  pro- 
vision was  kept  in  the  new  constitution  of  1698.5  It  is  no- 
ticeable here  that  this  was  primarily  a  political  question — 
a  question  of  freedom  and  suffrage — a  question  of  state,  not 
of  church.  The  state  was  declaring  its  right  to  state  the 
effect  of  conversion  on  the  slave.  It  is  well  to  note  this 
point  in  the  beginning,  because  the  splits  and  schisms  in 
the  various  churches  in  the  period  immediately  preceding 
the  Civil  War  came  up  over  this  point.  James  Adams,  a 
clergyman,  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  North  Carolina,  de- 
clared in  1709  that  the  masters  would  "by  no  means  permit 
(their  slaves)  to  be  baptized,  having  a  false  notion  that  a 
Christian  slave  is  by  law  free."6 

This  attitude  of  the  slaveholders  did  not  last  long  in  North 
Carolina,  because  Rev.  Marsden  in  1735  speaks  of  baptizing 
at  Cape  Fear  "about  1300  men,  women,  and  children,  be- 
sides some  negro  slaves."7  In  1742  a  missionary  speaks 
of  baptizing  nine  negro  slaves.8  Through  a  series  of  mis- 
sionary reports,  it  is  noticeable  that,  as  the  idea  becomes 
fixed,  that  baptism  does  not  free  the  slaves  nor  give  them 
the  suffrage,  the  number  of  baptized  blacks  increases.  In 
1765,  a  report  speaks  of  40  blacks  that  were  baptized9 ;  an- 
other report,  46  ;10  and  a  third,  51. 13  In  1771  a  report  states 
that  65  were  taken  into  the  church  and  in  1772  a  Rev.  Taylor 
states  that  in  thirteen  months  he  had  baptized  174  whites 
and  168  blacks. 

The  attitude  of  the  Protestant  churches  on  slavery  de- 
pended very  largely  on  the  strength  of  their  organic  connec- 
tion with  the  South.  All  the  churches  that  were  strong  in 


4Col.  Recs.,  I,  204. 
-Ibid.    857, 


"Ibid. 

'Ibid. 
slbid. 


720. 

IV,  13. 

794. 

VII,  126. 
ioibid.,  424. 
"Ibid.,  705. 


104  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

the  South  preserved  a  compromise  policy  so  long  as  it  was 
possible.  The  Congregational  and  Unitarian  churches,  be- 
ing Northern  only,  could  without  friction  readily  become 
anti-slavery.  The  Episcopal  church  was  primarily  a  South- 
ern church  and  was  made  up  of  the  slaveocracy  of  the  South. 
It  remained  more  indifferent  toward  slavery  than  any  of  the 
other  churches.12  It  is  my  purpose  now  to  make  a  study  of 
the  anti-slavery  activities  of  these  churches  in  Tennessee  in 
the  order  of  the  effectiveness  of  their  work. 

I.    THE  METHODISTS. 

Methodism  came  to  America  in  1766. 31  There  were  two 
wings  of  it  from  the  beginning.  Wesleyan  Methodism  in 
Maryland  and  New  York  was  anti-slavery,  while  Whitefield 
Methodism  in  Georgia  was  pro-slavery.14  Methodism  spread 
rapidly  from  these  centers  and  became  national  in  its  or- 
ganization by  1773,  when  the  first  General  Conference  was 
held  at  Philadelphia.15 

The  anti-slavery  history  of  Methodism  may  be  divided 
into  the  following  periods:  1766-1784,  a  period  in  which 
there  was  a  growth  of  anti-slavery  feeling  in  the  church  that 
reached  a  high  water  mark  in  1784 ;  from  1784  to  1816,  a 
period  of  reaction,  culminating  in  the  compromise  law  of 
1816 ;  from  1816  to  1836,  a  period  of  practically  no  change 
in  legislation,  although  the  church  in  the  North  was  becom- 
ing more  anti-slavery  in  sentiment,  and  in  the  South,  more 
pro-slavery;  from  1836  to  1844,  a  period  of  conflict  with 
1840  as  the  date  of  the  greatest  compromise ;  from  1844  to 
1860,  the  period  of  two  branches  of  Methodism. 


12Matlock,  L.  C.,  The  Anti-slavery  Struggle  and  Triumph  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  17. 

"American  Church  History,  XI,  1. 

14Tyerman,  L.,  Life  of  Whitefield,  II,  272.  Whitefield  is  reported 
as  having  said:  "I  should  think  myself  highly  favored  if  I  could 
purchase  a  good  number  of  slaves  in  order  to  make  their  lives  more 
comfortable  and  lay  a  foundation  for  bringing  up  their  posterity  in 
the  nature  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  He  died  owning  75  slaves. 
American  Church  History,  XI,  5. 

15Jernegan,  op.  cit.,  515. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  105 

A  brief  characterization  of  these  periods  forms  a  fitting 
background  for  the  anti-slavery  history  of  Tennessee  Metho- 
dists : 

A.  From  1776  to  1784.     This  was  a  period  of  little  dis- 
sension on  the  slavery  question.16     It  was  characterized  by 
an  increasing  anti-slavery  feeling,  expressing  itself  first  in 
178017  and  more  effectively  in  1784,  when  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference enacted  a  general  code  of  regulations  for  both  lay- 
men and  preachers,  prohibiting  '"the  buying  or  selling  the 
bodies  and  souls  of  men,  women  or  children  with  the  inten- 
tion of  enslaving  them,"18  and  requiring  abolition  of  the 
slaves  of  its  members  within  one  or  two  years.     This  was  to 
be  done,  however,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  various 
states.     This  was  the  high  water  mark  of  anti-slavery  Meth- 
odism. 

B.  From  1784  to  1816.     This  period  is  marked  by  con- 
cession to  slaveholders,  finally  ending  in  the  adoption  in  1808 
of  the  policy  of  letting  the  annual  conferences  regulate  slav- 
ery.19    The  church  here  definitely  recognized  that  it  could 


16Matlock,  op.  cit.,  17. 

17 Minutes  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Conferences,  1773-1813,  I,  5-6. 

18The  first  paragraph  of  this  law  shows  the  general  tenor  of  these 
regulations : 

1.  Every  member  of  our  society  who  has  slaves  in  his  possession 
shall,  within  twelve  months  after  notice  given  to  him  by  the  Assistant 
(which  the  assistants  are  required  immediately,  and  without  any  de- 
lay, to  give  to  their  respective  circuits),  legally  execute  and  record 
an  instrument  whereby  he  emancipates  and  sets  free  every  slave  in 
his  possession  who  is  between  the  ages  of  forty  and  forty-five  imme- 
diately, or  at  farthest  when  they  arrive  at  the  age  of  forty-five;  and 
every  slave  who  is  between  the  ages  of  twenty-five  and  forty  imme- 
diately, or  at  farthest  at  the  expiration  of  five  years  from  the  dat<? 
of  said  instrument;  every  slave  who  is  between  the  ages  of  twenty- 
one  and  twenty-five  immediately  or  at  farthest  wnen  they  arrive  a' 
the  age  of  thirty;  and  every  slave  under  the  age  of  twenty  as  soon 
as  they  arrive  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  at  farthest;  and  every  infam 
born  in  slavery  after  the  above-mentioned  rules  are  complied  with 
immediately  on  its  birth.  McTyeire,  Holland  M.,  History  of  Method- 
ism, II,  pp.  375-378. 

19Minutes  of  the  General  Conferences,  1796-1844,  pp.  40-1 ;  Journal 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1800,  pp.  37-44;  American  Church  His- 
tory, XI,  7. 


106  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

not  enforce  requirements  upon  its  members  in  violation  of 
the  civil  laws  of  the  states.  This  really  amounted  to  a  split 
in  the  church  on  this  question,  because  it  meant  the  estab- 
lishment of  two  policies,  one  conformable  to  the  free  states 
of  the  North,  and  the  other  to  the  slave  states  of  the  South. 
This  change  in  the  policy  of  the  church  was  a  victory  for 
the  slaveholders. 

C.  From  1816  to  1836.     The  conference  of  1816  adopted 
the  famous  compromise  law  by  which  slaveholders  in  free 
states  could  not  be  officers  in  the  church.     This  prohibition 
did  not  apply  to  the  slave  states.20     The  conference  of  1836 
with  absolutely  no  dissent  expressed  a  determined  opposi- 
tion to  abolition.21 

D.  From  1836  to  1844.     During  this  period  the  anti- 
slavery  forces  were  organizing  to  break  the  grip  of  the 
slavocracy  of  the  church.     In  1840,  the  pro-slavery  forces 
registered  their  greatest  victory  in  the  history  of  the  strug- 
gle.   The  result  was  the  secession  of  1842  and  the  formation 
of  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Church  of  America  at  Utica,  New 
York  in  1843,  with  a  non-slave-holding  membership.22     It 
was  now  seen  that  the  church  could  no  longer  pursue  a 
compromise  policy.     The  annual  conferences  began  to  adopt 
resolutions  condemning  either  anti-slavery  fanatics  or  slave- 
holding  thieves.     It  was  now  impossible  for  officers  of  the 
church  to  be  administrators  in  sections  of  the  country  with 
which  their  views  on  slavery  did  not  agree. 

E.  From  1845  to  1860.     It  was  early  seen  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1844  would  likely  divide  on  the  question 
of  slavery.     The  contest  of  1844  related  to  Bishop  Andrews, 
whose  wife  was  a  slaveholder,  and  ended  in  the  passing  of 

20Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1816,  p.  170. 

21"Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Conferences  in  General 
Conference  assembled,  That  they  are  decidedly  opposed  to  modern 
abolition,  and  wholly  disclaim  any  right,  wish,  or  intention,  to  inter- 
fere in  the  civil  and  political  relation  between  master  and  slave  as  it 
exists  in  the  slave-holding  states  of  this  Union."  Journal  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1836,  pp.  446-7. 

—Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  pp.  136-6. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  107 

the  Finley  Resolution  by  the  decisive  vote  of  110  to  68,  de- 
posing Bishop  Andrews  from  the  Episcopacy,23  although 
he  had  violated  no  law  of  the  church.24  The  Southern  del- 
egates attempted  in  vain  to  have  this  action  of  the  confer- 
ence interpreted  as  merely  advisory  in  character.25 

The  general  conference  of  the  church  finally  agreed  to 
its  reorganization  under  two  general  conferences.  This  plan 
was  accepted  almost  unanimously,  and  led  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  at  the  con- 
vention of  the  delegates  of  the  Southern  Methodist  churches 
in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  1845. 26 

The  purpose  of  this  brief  sketch  of  the  anti-slavery  his- 
tory of  Methodism  in  general  is,  first,  to  give  a  reflection 
of  Tennessee  Methodism,  which,  like  that  in  the  nation  gen- 
erally, was  divided  on  the  slavery  question ;  and,  secondly,  to 
form  a  background  for  a  comparative  study  of  Tennessee 
Methodists  in  particular. 

The  Methodists  were  among  the  pioneers  of  Tennessee, 
when  it  was  customary  to  attend  church  with  the  shot- 
pouch  well  filled  and  the  rifle  in  trim.  Among  their  pioneer 
preachers  were  Jeremiah  Lambert,  who  came  to  Holston 
circuit  in  1783,  Rev.  Benjamin  Ogden,  who  in  1786  carried 
Methodism  to  John  Donelson's  settlement  on  the  Cumber- 
land, and  Rev.  John  McGee,  who  arrived  in  Tennessee  in 


-3The  Finley  Resolution  was:  "Whereas,  the  discipline  of  one 
church  forbids  the  doing  anything  calculated  to  destroy  an  itinerant 
general  superintendency ;  and,  whereas,  Bishop  Andrew  has  become 
connected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  having 
drawn  after  it  circumstances  which,  in  the  estimation  of  the  General 
Conference,  will  greatly  embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an 
itinerant  general  superintendent,  if  not  in  some  places  entirely  pre- 
vent it;  therefore,  Resolved  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Con- 
ference that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as  this 
impediment  exists."  Journal  of  General  Conference  of  1844,  p.  85. 

24Bedford,  A.  H.,  History  of  the  Organization  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  p.  207. 

25Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  p.  85.      ,n  ^. 

26Bedford,  pp.  418-503;  see  also  Wightman,  W.  M.,  Life  of  William 
Capers,  pp.  398-425;  Smith,  G.  G.,  Life  and  Letters  of  James  Osgood 
Andrew,  pp.  336-385. 


108  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

1798. -1  The  Methodists  were  leaders  in  the  famous  revi- 
vals from  1800  to  1810.28 

In  1797,  one-fourth  of  the  membership  of  the  Methodist 
church  was  negroes.29  Of  the  11,280  negroes  in  the  church 
in  1797,  10,824  were  in  the  Southern  States.  There  were 
42  slaves  in  the  Methodist  church  in  Tennessee  in  1797.29 

The  Tennessee  Methodists  were  a  part  of  the  Kentucky 
conference  until  1801,  and  were  strongly  anti-slavery,  be- 
cause only  the  mountainous  portion  of  these  states  was  set- 
tled at  this  time.  In  1801,  Tennessee  became  a  part  of  the 
Western  Conference,  and  remained  so  until  1812.  It  was 
in  the  first  meeting  of  this  conference  in  1808  that  Ten- 
nessee Methodists  first  expressed  themselves  on  the  question 
of  slavery.30 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  General  Conference  of 
1808  gave  the  annual  conference  the  power  to  legislate  on 
the  question  of  slavery.31  In  accordance  with  this  plan,  the 
Western  Conference,  which  met  at  Liberty  Hill,  near  Nash- 
ville, Tennessee,  in  1808,  took  the  most  drastic  action  against 
slaveholding  to  be  found  in  the  annals  of  Methodism.  This 
conference  instructed  the  Quarterly  Conference  to  summon 
before  them  all  persons  speculating  in  slaves  and  expel  from 
the  church  those  found  guilty.  It  further  declared  that  any 
member  of  the  church  "who  should  buy  or  sell  a  slave  un- 
justly, inhumanly,  or  covetously,"  was  subject  to  excom- 


27Garrett  and  Goodpasture,  p.  156;  Goodspeed,  p.  647. 

ssibid.,  p.  157. 

29Harrison,  W.  P.,  The  Gospel  Among  the  Slaves,  p.  61. 

30McFerrin,  J.  B.,  History  of  Methodism  in  Tennessee,  I,  pp.  26, 
470,  523;  Vol.  II,  pp.  132,  159,  262;  see  also  McTyeire,  p.  462;  and 
Goodspeed,  pp.  664,  667. 

Note:  The  minutes  of  the  Annual  Conference  of  the  Methodists  in 
Tennessee  were  burned  with  the  Methodist  Publishing  House  in  Nash- 
ville, February,  1872.  The  publishing  house  has  never  been  able  to 
find  another  copy.  McFerrin's  History  of  Methodism  in  Tennessee, 
which  contains  copious  quotations  from  these  minutes,  is  the  only 
available  source. 

31Supra,  p.  105. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  109 

munication.32  This  rule  of  the  conference  prevailed  until 
1812. 33  Some  of  the  presiding  elders  and  circuit  riders 
were  even  more  strongly  anti-slavery  than  was  the  confer- 
ence. Rev.  James  Axley  and  Rev.  Enoch  Moore  refused  to 
license  slaveholders  to  preach,  or  even  to  grant  them  the 
privilege  of  exhorting  or  leading  in  prayer.  They  denounced 
slaveholders  as  thieves  and  robbers. 

The  Tennessee  Conference,  which  was  a  division  of  the 
Western  Conference,  held  its  first  annual  meeting  at  Foun- 
tain Head,  Tennessee,  in  1812.  This  conference  made  some 
interesting  changes  in  the  regulations  for  slaveholders  that 
remind  one  of  the  compromise  policy  of  the  general  confer- 
ences.3* The  phrase,  "unjustly,  inhumanly,  and  covet- 
ously," used  by  the  conference  of  1808  with  reference  to  the 
buying  and  selling  of  slaves,  was  changed  to  "justice  and 
mercy."  The  slaves  of  officers  of  the  church  were  to  be 
emancipated  when  practicable.35 

An  elaborate  system  of  trial  for  violations  was  estab- 
lished. The  quarterly  conference  was  made  the  court  of 
first  instance.  If  the  president  of  this  conference  differed 
from  the  majority,  he  could  refer  the  case  to  the  annual 
conference,  or  the  accused  could  appeal  his  case  to  the  an- 
nual conference.  At  this  conference,  a  slaveholder  made 
application  to  preach,  but  he  was  not  admitted  to  the  min- 
istry until  he  had  given  security  that  he  would  emancipate 
his  slaves  as  soon  as  it  was  practicable.36 

The  conferences  of  1813  and  1814  did  not  raise  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery,  but  in  1815,  the  conference  held  at  Beth- 
lehem Meeting  House  in  Wilson  County,  Tennessee,  adopted 
a  policy  with  the  laws  of  the  states.  This  was  simply  a 

32Asbury,  Thomas,  Journal  of  Rev.  Francis  Asbury,  Vol.  3,  p.  290; 
Cartwright,  Peter,  Fifty  Years  as  a  Presiding  Elder,  pp.  53ff.;  Good- 
speed,  pp.  663-667;  Temple,  O.  P.,  East  Tennessee  and  Civil  War,  pp. 
97ff. 

33Goodspeed,  p.  667. 

34Supra,  p.  106. 

ssMcFerrin,  II,  261,  283;  Goodspeed,  pp.  667,  668. 

seMcFerrin,  II,  261. 


110  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  church  should  not  under- 
take to  control  civil  matters.  The  committee  on  slavery 
made  the  following  report  : 

We  most  sincerely  believe,*  and  declare  it  as  our 
opinion,  that  slavery  is  a  moral  evil.  But  as  the 
laws  of  our  country  do  not  admit  of  emancipation 
without  a  special  act  of  the  Legislature,  in  some 
places,  nor  admit  of  the  slave  so  liberated  to  enjoy 
freedom,  we  cannot  adopt  any  rule  by  which  we 
can  compel  our  members  to  liberate  their  slaves; 
and  as  the  nature  of  cases  in  buying  and  selling  are 
various  and  complex,  we  do  not  think  it  possible  to 
devise  any  rule  sufficiently  specific  to  meet  them. 
But  to  go  as  far  as  we  can,  consistent  with  the  laws 
of  our  country  and  the  nature  of  things,  to  do  away 
with  the  evil,  and  remove  the  curse  from  the 
Church  of  God,  it  is  the  resolution  of  this  confer- 
ence that  the  following  resolutions  shall  be 
adopted : 

"1.  If  any  member  of  our  Society  shall  buy  or 
sell  a  slave  or  slaves  in  order  to  make  gain,  or  shall 
sell  to  any  person  who  buys  to  sell  again  for  that 
purpose,  such  member  shall  be  called  to  an  account 
as  the  Discipline  directs,  and  expelled  from  our 
Church;  nevertheless,  the  above  rule  does  not  af- 
fect any  person  in  our  Society,  if  he  or  she  make  it 
appear  that  they  bought  or  sold  to  keep  man  and 
wife,  parents  and  children,  together. 

"2.  No  person,  traveling  or  local,  shall  be  eli- 
gible to  the  office  of  a  deacon  in  our  church,  unless 
he  assures  us  sentimentally,  in  person  or  by  letter, 
that  he  disapproves  slavery  and  declares  his  will- 
ingness and  intention  to  execute,  whenever  it  is 
practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slave  or 
slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  State  in 
which  he  lives.37 

This  report  was  adopted  and  ordered  to  be  copied  into  the 
Steward's  Book  of  the  Circuit. 


in,  II,  401. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  111 

The  Conference  of  1817  dealt  very  extensively  with  slav- 
ery.38 It  made  provision  for  the  buying  and  selling  of 

3sThe  Code  of  1817  is  as  follows : 

"If  a  local  elder,  deacon,  or  preacher,  in  our  Church,  shall  purchase 
a  slave  or  slaves,  he  shall  lay  his  case  before  the  Quarterly-Meeting 
Conference  of  his  circuit  as  soon  as  practicable,  which  Quarterly- 
Meeting  Conference  shall  say  how  long  such  slave  or  slaves  serve 
as  a  remuneration  to  the  purchaser;  and  on  the  decision  of  the  Quar- 
terly-Meeting Conference,  touching  the  time  the  slave  or  slaves  shall 
serve,  the  purchaser  shall,  without  delay,  enter  into  a  written  obliga- 
tion to  the  Quarterly-Meeting  Conference  to  emancipate  such  slave 
or  slaves  at  the  expiration  of  the  term  of  servitude,  if  the  law  of  the 
State  will  admit;  and  such  obligation  shall  be  entered  on  the  Journals 
of  the  Quarterly-Meeting  Conference.  But  should  the  laws  of  the 
State  continue  rigidly  to  oppose  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  so  that 
their  freedom,  as  above  contemplated,  should  prove  impracticable, 
during  the  term  and  at  the  end  of  the  slave's  or  slaves'  servitude,  as 
determined  by  the  Quarterly-Meeting  Conference,  he,  the  said  elder, 
deacon,  or  preacher^  shall,  at  the  end  of  the  time  of  servitude,  again 
lay  his  case  before  the  Quarterly-Meeting  Conference,  which  Quar- 
terly-Meeting Conference  shall  determine  it  according  to  the  then 
existing  slave  rule  of  the  Annual  Conference  to  which  he  belongs ;  and 
should  the  said  elder,  deacon,  or  preacher,  be  dissatisfied  with  the 
decision  of  the  Quarterly-Meeting  Conference,  he  shall  be  allowed  an 
appeal  to  the  ensuing  Annual  Conference,  provided  he  then  signifies 
his  intention  of  so  appealing. 

"2.  If  a  private  member  in  our  society  buy  a  slave  or  slaves,  the 
preacher  who  has  charge  of  the  circuit  shall  summon  a  committee, 
of  which  he  shall  be  president,  or  at  least  three  disinterested  male 
members  from  the  class  of  which  he  or  she  is  a  member;  and  if  a 
committee  cannot  be  elected  from  the  class  to  which  the  slave  pur- 
chaser belongs,  in  such  case  the  preacher  may  make  up  the  commit- 
tee from  a  neighboring  class  or  classes,  which  committee  shall  deter- 
mine the  length  of  time  such  slave  or  slaves  shall  serve  as  a  com- 
pensation to  the  purchaser,  and  immediately  on  the  determination  of 
the  committee,  touching  the  slave's  or  slaves'  time  of  servitude,  he 
or  she,  the  purchaser,  shall  bind  himself  or  herself  in  a  written  obli- 
gation to  the  church  to  have  the  emancipation  of  such  slave  or  slaves, 
at  the  expiration  of  the  given  time,  recorded  as  soon  as  practicable, 
if  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which  he  or  she  live  will  admit  of  eman- 
cipation; and  such  obligation  shall  be  filed  among  the  papers  of  the 
Quarterley-Meeting  Conference  of  the  circuit  in  which  he  or  she 
lives.  But  should  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  the  purchaser  lives 
render  it  impracticable  to  emancipate  said  slave  or  slaves,  during  the 
time  of  servitude  fixed  by  the  committee  for  said  slave  or  slaves,  the 


112  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

slaves.  It  prohibited  the  selling  of  slaves  into  perpetual 
bondage  on  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  membership  in  the 
church.  The  quarterly  conference  was  given  the  power  to 
regulate  the  term  of  slavery  for  which  a  member  of  the 
church  could  sell  his  slave.  The  preacher  of  each  congre- 
gation was  empowered  to  appoint  a  committee  of  three  to 


preacher  having  charge  of  the  circuit  or  station  shall  call  a  second 
committee  at  the  end  of  the  time  of  servitude  who  shall  determine  the 
case  according  to  the  then  existing  slave  rule  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence to  which  he  or  she  belongs ;  and  if  he  or  she  feel  him  or  herself 
aggrieved,  he  or  she  shall  be  allowed  an  appeal  to  the  ensuing  Quar- 
terly-Meeting Conference  of  his  or  her  circuit.  In  all  cases  relative 
either  to  preachers  or  private  members,  the  colored  or  bond-children 
born  of  slaves  purchased,  after  their  purchase  and  during  the  time 
of  their  bondage,  male  and  female,  shall  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
five,  if  the  law  admit  of  emancipation;  and  if  not,  the  case  of  those 
born  of  purchased  slaves  in  bondage  to  said  elder,  deacon,  or  preacher, 
shall  be  cognizable  by  the  Quarterly-Meeting  Conference,  and  in  the 
case  of  those  born  of  purchased  slaves  in  bondage  to  private  members, 
shall  be  cognizable  by  a  committee  of  the  above-mentioned  kind,  which 
Quarterly-Meeting  Conference  and  committee  shall  decide  in  such  case 
as  the  then  existing  slave  rule  shall  or  may  direct;  provided,  never- 
theless, the  above  rules  be  not  so  construed  as  to  oblige  an  eider, 
deacon,  preacher,  or  private  member,  to  give  security  for  the  good 
behaviour  and  maintenance  of  the  slave  or  slaves  emancipated,  should 
the  court  require  it.  If  an  elder,  deacon,  preacher,  or  private  mem- 
ber, among  us,  shall  sell  a  slave  or  slaves  into  perpetual  bondage,  they 
shall  thereby  forfeit  their  membership  in  our  church.  Therefore,  in 
case  an  elder,  deacon,  or  preacher  sell  a  slave  or  slaves,  he  shall  first 
submit  the  case  to  the  Quarterly -Meeting  Conference  of  which  he  is  a 
member,  and  said  Quarterly-Meeting  Conference  shall  say  for  what 
term  of  years  he  shall  sell  his  slave,  or  slaves,  which  term  being  fixed, 
the  seller  shall  immediately  record  his,  her,  or  their  emancipation  in 
the  county  court;  and  a  private  member  selling  a  slave  or  slaves  shall 
first  acquaint  the  preacher  having  the  charge  of  the  circuit  with  his 
design,  who  shall  summon  a  committee  of  the  above-mentioned  kind, 
of  which  he,  the  said  preacher,  shall  be  President.  Said  Committee 
shall  say,  for  what  term  of  years,  he,  she,  or  they  shall  sell  his,  her  or 
their  slave  or  slaves,  and  the  seller  shall  be  required  immediately  to 
record  the  emancipation  of  such  slave  or  slaves  in  the  county  court. 
An  elder,  deacon,  preacher,  or  private  member  among  us,  refusing  to 
comply  with  the  above  rules,  shall  be  dealt  with  as  in  other  cases  of 
immorality,  and  expelled."  McFerrin,  II  462-466. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1S65  11.3 

judge  of  the  length  of  service  that  slaves  purchased  by  mem- 
bers could  be  required  to  render.  All  of  these  requirements 
were  conditioned  on  practicability,  the  consent  of  the  state, 
violation  of  justice  and  mercy,  and  assumption  of  financial 
responsibility  against  charge  of  emancipated  slaves.  The 
conditions  of  the  execution  of  these  regulations  show  what 
a  travesty  the  whole  procedure  was. 

The  case  of  Hardy  M.  Cryer,  which  came  before  the  con- 
ference of  1817,  illustrates  the  difficulty  that  the  church 
faced  in  trying  to  enforce  its  policy.  Mr.  Cryer  was  secre- 
tary of  the  conference  of  1817.  He  had  failed  to  emanci- 
pate his  slaves  according  to  a  promise  made  the  previous 
conference.  He  had  in  the  meantime  bought  a  negro  boy. 
He  was  able  to  make  satisfactory  explanation  of  his  con- 
duct to  the  conference,  and  was  appointed  elder.  In  other 
words,  he  was  able  to  show  the  conference  that  his  conduct 
had  been  consistent  with  "justice  and  mercy"  and  that  its 
requirements  as  to  emancipation  were  "impracticable."39 

One  of  the  most  eminent  of  Tennessee  historians  made  the 
following  comment  on  the  action  of  the  church  in  the  con- 
ference of  1817 : 

Such  was  the  legislation  of  a  body  of  ministers 
with  reference  to  a  subject  over  which  they  had 
no  control,  provided  the  laws  themselves  did  not 
admit  of  emancipation,  which  they  themselves  as- 
sumed to  be  the  fact.  Hence,  the  adoption  of  a 
proviso  which  in  every  case,  taking  things  as  they 
were,  either  nullified  the  rule  or  made  it  easy  for 
a  member  or  a  minister  to  retain  his  slaves;  for 
whenever  he  determined  to  own  slaves  it  was  easy 
to  make  it  appear  that  it  was  in  accordance  with 
justice  and  mercy  to  retain  those  already  in  pos- 
session, or  that  under  the  law  it  was  impracticable 
to  set  them  free.  Such  legislation  would  seem  to 
be  sufficiently  absurd,  but  it  is  amazing  that  an  in- 
telligent body  of  men  should  gravely  attempt  to 
compel  a  preacher  or  member  to  emancipate  a 
slave  at  an  expiration  of  a  term  of  years  after 
having  surrendered  ownership  and  control  of 

,  II,  p.  467. 


114  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

same.  The  only  theory  conceivable  that  can  re- 
lieve the  conference  of  the  accomplishment  of  a 
solemn  mockery  is  the  supposition  that  they,  hav- 
ing confidence  in  the  justice  of  the  future,  must 
have  believed  themselves  to  be  anticipating  civil 
legislation — that  the  legal  emancipation  of  the 
slave  was  an  event  which  the  immediate  future 
must  produce.  However,  the  attitude  of  the  con- 
ference on  this  subject  is  of  great  historical  value, 
bringing  into  clear  relief,  as  it  does,  the  strong 
conviction  of  the  Methodist  body  of  Christians 
that  slavery  was  a  great  moral  evil,  the  existence 
of  which  was  deplorable,  and  to  be  opposed  by 
every  means  attached  to  which  there  was  any  hope 
of  its  gradual  abolishment.40 

The  conference  of  1818,  which  met  at  Nashville,  repealed 
the  regulations  of  the  conference  of  1817,  and  decided  that 
the  "printed  rules  on  slavery,  in  the  form  of  discipline" 
was  full  and  sufficient  on  that  subject.41 

The  conference  of  1819  also  met  at  Nashville  and  decided 
"that  no  man  who  is  known  to  hold  slaves  is  to  be  admitted 
to  the  office  of  deacon  or  elder."42  Peter  Burum  and  Gilbert 
D.  Taylor,  who  were  recommended  for  admission  to  the 
ministry,  were  rejected  by  this  conference  because  they  were 
slaveholders.43  Several  applicants  for  deacon's  orders  were 
rejected  for  the  same  reason. 

The  conference  of  1819  witnessed  a  determined  contest 
between  the  pro-slavery  and  anti-slavery  forces,  caused  by 
an  accusation  made  by  Peter  Cartwright,44  that  a  number 
of  ministers  in  the  state  were  "living  in  constant  violation 
of  the  discipline  of  the  church."4"1  Felix  Grundy  and  An- 
drew Jackson  represented  the  two  factions.  "The  discus- 
sion of  the  subject  of  slavery,"  said  Peter  Cartwright, 

*°Goodspeed,  p.  669. 
41McFerrin,  III,  19-20. 
«Ibid.,  p.  161. 
43Goodspeed,  p.  670. 
4*Ibid.,  p.  669;  Autobiography  of  Peter  Cartwright,  the  Backwoods 
Preacher,  p.  195. 

45Autobiography  of  Peter  Cartwright,  p.  195. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  115 

"worked  up  some  bad  feeling,  and  as  we  had  at  this  confer- 
ence to  elect  our  delegates  to  the  general  conference  which 
was  to  hold  its  session  in  Baltimore  in  May,  1820,  these 
slaveholding  preachers  determined  to  form  a  ticket  to  ex- 
clude every  one  of  us  who  were  for  the  Methodist  Discipline 
as  it  was,  and  is  to  this  day.  As  soon  as  we  found  out  their 
plans  we  formed  an  opposite  ticket,  excluding  all  advocates 
of  slavery,  and  we  elected  every  man  on  the  ticket."46 

Sixteen  local  preachers  filed  the  following  protest  against 
the  action  of  the  conference  in  refusing  to  admit  slavehold- 
ers to  the  office  of  deacon  or  elder: 

We  deprecate  the  course  taken  as  oppressively 
severe  in  itself  and  ruinous  in  its  consequences, 
and  we  disapprove  of  the  principle  as  contrary  to 
and  in  violation  of  the  order  and  discipline  of  our 
church.  We,  therefore,  do  most  solemnly,  and  in 
the  fear  of  God,  as  members  of  this  conference, 
enter  our  protest  against  the  proceedings  of  the 
conference  as  it  related  to  the  above-mentioned 
course  and  principle.47 

This  protest  was  supported  by  the  slaveholders,  and  laid 
before  the  general  conference  in  1820,  but  no  definite  action 
was  ever  taken  on  it.48 

The  period  from  1819  to  1824  was  a  transition  period  to 
some  extent.  There  was  no  important  action  by  any  of  the 
conferences  during  this  period.  Rev.  John  Johnson  in  1820 
proposed  that  the  church  recognize  slavery  as  a  municipal 
institution  and  try  to  humanize  it.49  This  was  the  position 

46 Autobiography  of  Peter  Cartwright,  p.  196. 

47Goodspeed,  pp.  669-670. 

48McFerrin,  II,  195. 

49He  proposed  the  following  program  for  the  church  on  slavery: 

1.  That  every  householder  in  our  church  shall  provide  a  comfort- 
able house,  with  sufficient  bed  and  bedding,  for  every  slave  in  his  pos- 
session. 

2.  That  each  slave  shall  be  clothed  in  decent  apparel  in  summer 
and  warm  clothing  in  winter,  and   shall  have  plenty  of  good   and 
wholesome  food,  and  time  to  eat  it. 

3.  That  every  slave  over. . .  .years  of  age  shall  be  taught  to  read 
the  Holy  Scriptures. 


116  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

that  most  of  the  churches  had  already  taken  on  slavery. 
The  struggle  over  slavery  in  Missouri  revealed  the  earnest- 
ness of  the  forces  on  both  sides.  Anti-slavery  leaders  began 
to  leave  the  state.  Among  the  Methodists  were  Wesley 
Harrison,  an  influential  layman,  who  went  to  Ohio ;  James 
Axley,  a  presiding  elder;  and  Enoch  Moore,  a  strong  anti- 
slavery  preacher.50  It  was  in  this  period,  says  McFerrin, 
that  "the  church  came  to  a  standstill,  and  was  in  a  measure 
paralyzed  and  powerless  for  good.  As  a  means  of  averting 
greater  evils,  and  saving  the  church  if  possible,  colonization 
and  emancipation  societies  were  formed,  and  it  was  believed 
by  many  that  such  organizations  did  a  great  deal  to  prevent 
a  serious  rupture  in  the  church  till  the  storm  passed  over."51 
The  conference  of  1824,  in  response  to  a  memorial  on 
slavery  presented  by  the  Moral  and  Religious  Manumission 
Society  of  West  Tennessee,  declared  "that  slavery  is  an  evil 
to  be  deplored  and  that  it  should  be  counteracted  by  every 
judicious  and  religious  exertion."52  It  is  noticed  that  while 
slavery  was  condemned  as  an  evil,  it  was  to  be  handled 
"judiciously."  What  did  "judiciously"  mean  in  the  eyes  of 
the  slaveholders?  "This  resolution,"  says  McFerrin,  "was 

4.  That  every  slave  over ....  years  of  age  shall  be  permitted  to 
attend  the  worship  of  God. . .  .times  in  every 

5.  That  every  slave  shall  attend  family  worship  twice  a  day. 

6.  That  every  slave  shall  be   allowed   one  hour  for  reading  in 
every 

7.  That  no  master  shall  inflict  more  than ....  stripes  for  any  on^ 
offense,  nor  any  stripes  on  any  one  who  is  over years  of  age. 

8.  That  no  slave  shall  be  compelled  to  marry  against  his  will. 

9.  No  master  shall  suffer  man  and  wife,  parent  and  child,  to  be 
parted  without  their  consent  when  it  is  in  his  power — he  being  the 
owner  of  one — to  prevent  it  by  buying  or  selling  at  a  fair  price. 

10.  On  any  complaint  being  made  against  a  member  for  violation 
of  these  rules  let  the  preacher  appoint  a  committee  of . . .  .to  investi- 
gate the  facts  and  report  to  the  society. 

11.  Any  member  violating  or  refusing  to  comply  with  the  above 
rules  shall  be  dealt  with  as  in  other  cases  of  immorality. — Recollec- 
tions of  Rev.  John  Johnson  and  His  House,  An  Autobiography,  305-6. 

5<>McFerrin,  II,  95. 

51Ibid.,  494. 

52Ibid.,  261;  Goodspeed,  668. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  117 

proposed  by  two  members,  who  themselves  or  their  parents 
were  slaveholders/'53  Evidently,  this  was  a  modified  at- 
titude of  the  church.  "What  a  misfortune,"  says  McFerrin, 
"that  this  sentiment  had  not  always  obtained,  treating  the 
matter  in  a  religious  manner,  and  not  intermeddling  with  it 
as  a  civil  question."53 

From  1824  to  1834  was  a  period  of  growth  of  pro-slavery 
sentiment  in  Tennessee.  Anti-slavery  workers  from  all  de- 
nominations left  the  state.  Manumission  societies  died. 
The  colonization  movement  was  a  failure.  Abolition  lit- 
erature was  discontinued.  Exclusion  policy  was  adopted 
in  1831. r>4  Slaveholders  began  to  advocate  preaching  to  the 
slaves,  and  made  heavy  contributions  for  this  purpose. 
Separate  negro  churches  were  established  after  the  master 
ceased  to  be  suspicious  of  the  preachers,  and  missions  were 
established  among  the  slaves  at  the  expense  of  the  masters. 
"Owners  of  large  plantations,"  says  Harrison,  "coming  to 
the  knowledge  of  this  change  in  the  disposition  of  the 
Methodist  preachers,  and  finding  many  of  them  following 
the  example  of  the  illustrious  bishop,  then  Mr.  Capers,  and 
seeing  the  good  effects  produced  by  the  preaching  to  the 
negroes  on  the  plantations  of  their  neighbors,  ultimately 
gave  their  consent  to  permit  their  slaves  to  hear  the  gospel 
from  the  lips  of  capable  white  missionaries."53 

The  Methodist  Church  had  always  had  slave  members  in 
it.  In  1791,  there  were  12,844;  in  1803,  there  were  22,453, 
most  of  whom  were  in  the  South.56  In  1824,  there  were 
1749  negro  members  in  the  Methodist  church  in  Tennessee ; 
in  1840,  there  were  8,820 ;  and  in  1846,  there  were  18,122." 
Following  the  lead  of  the  missionary  movement  to  slaves 
begun  by  Bishop  Capers  in  1829,58  the  Tennessee  annual 
conference  of  1832  established  two  missions  to  which  were 


,  III,  271. 
54Infra,  pp.  153-5. 
55Harrison,  p.  151. 

56Ibid.,  pp.  61-2;  Wightman,  pp.  288-302. 
57Goodspeed,  p.  676. 
58Harrison,  p.  155. 
59Ibid.,  p.  161. 


118  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

sent  Thomas  M.  King  and  Gilbert  D.  Taylor.  By  the  close 
of  1832  these  missions  numbered  190  members.60  Mission- 
ary work  among  the  slaves  in  Tennessee  expanded  conser- 
vatively until  1844.  By  1839,  Tennessee  had  nine  missions 
with  2,316  members  and  ten  missionaries,  and  was  paying 
$2,700  to  missions  among  the  slaves.61 

Some  very  strong  preachers  developed  among  the  slaves. 
Probably  the  greatest  negro  preacher  in  all  Methodism,  it 
not  in  all  Christendom,  was  Pompey.  He  was  probably  a 
native  of  Africa,  and  in  his  youth  was  a  slave  of  Rev.  N. 
Moore,  brother-in-law  of  Bishop  McKendree.  He  traveled 
as  a  servant  with  Rev.  Moore,  and  at  one  of  his  revivals  was 
converted.  He  then  became  interested  in  the  Gospel,  and 
soon  learned  to  read.  He  gave  close  attention  to  his  mas- 
ter's sermons  and  sometimes  suggested  improvements.  "He 
ventured  to  tell  his  master  one  day/'  says  Rev.  H.  H.  Mont- 
gomery, "that  he  felt,  or  believed,  he  could  have  made  a 
better  sermon  than  he  did  the  day  before.  Tomp,  do  you 
think  you  could  preach?'  'Yes,  master,  I  have  felt  and 
thought  a  great  deal  about  it.'  Then,  Pompey,  you  shall 
preach  tomorrow.'  He  preached  the  next  day  and  his  mas- 
ter thought  so  well  of  the  sermon  that  he  set  Pompey  free."62 

Pompey  studied  the  Scriptures  very  closely,  and  became 
able  to  quote  freely  from  them.  He  was  a  very  popular 
preacher  to  both  whites  and  blacks.  He  preached  in  both 
Tennessee  and  Mississippi.  Rev.  Montgomery  gives  the 
following  account  of  his  preaching : 

The  first  time  I  remember  to  have  seen  him  was 
in  the  Christmas  holidays  of  1832.  The  weather 
was  very  cold,  but  the  congregation  was  so  large 
that  old  "Center"  church  could  not  hold  the  people 
by  one-half.  So  they  adjourned  to  the  camp- 
ground, where  the  vast  congregation  listened  at- 
tentively to  an  evangelical  and  powerful  sermon 
for  an  hour  from  him.  I  was  a  boy  of  thirteen 
years,  but  a  very  deep  impression  was  made  on  my 


60Harrison,  p.  194. 
.,  p.  195. 

,  III,  387. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  119 

mind.  He  related  the  circumstances  of  his  awak- 
ening, repentance,  and  conversion.  There  seemed 
to  be  scarcely  one  that  was  not  weeping.  And  when 
he  described  the  simplicity  of  that  faith  by  which 
he  received  pardon  and  salvation,  and  the  great 
change  of  heart  and  feeling  which  he  realized,  and 
everything  was  new — so  new  that  he  could  hardly 
realize  that  it  was  Pompey,  till  he  looked  at  his 
hands  and  felt  of  his  wool,  and  found  it  was  Pom- 
pey's  skin  and  Pompey's  wool,  but  it  was  Pompey 
with  a  new  heart — there  was  a  burst  of  glory  and 
praise  that  went  up  from  many  of  that  congre- 
gation.63 

There  were,  in  the  state,  other  negro  preachers  of  unusual 
ability,  among  them  Emanuel  Mark  of  Fayette  County.  He 
was  given  a  pass  by  his  master  to  preach  anywhere.  He 
preached  to  both  white  and  black.  Silas  Phillips  of  La 
Grange,  Tennessee,  was  another  remarkable  negro  preacher. 
Simeon  Hunt  was  also  a  negro  preacher  of  wonderful  elo- 
quence.64 

After  the  defeat  of  the  anti-slavery  forces  in  1834,  it  was 
recognized  that  slavery  was  a  fixed  institution  in  society, 
and  that  it  would  require  violence  to  overthrow  it.  The 
Methodists  had  gradually  been  reaching  this  conclusion. 
It  was  easy  for  them,  therefore,  to  adopt  a  slightly  different 
attitude  toward  it.  Their  position  was  well  phrased  by  Dr. 
A.  L.  P.  Green,  who  said  he  favored  the  institution,  "when 
it  was  properly  controlled,  and  regarded  it  as  a  blessing  to 
the  slave.  He  believed  the  negro  incompetent  and  unfitted 
for  self-government,  and  hence  a  wise,  good  master  was  a 
necessity."65  The  Methodists  were  forced  either  to  adopt 
this  attitude  or  see  the  slaveholders  withdraw  their  slaves 
to  churches  whose  attitude  toward  slavery  was  more  favor- 
able. The  missionary  spirit  of  the  church  saw  that  the 
slaves  offered  a  great  field  for' domestic  missions,  and  the 
Christian  slaveholder  came  to  be  regarded  as  a  blessing.06 

esMcFerrin,  III,  389-90. 

6*Harrison,  338-343. 

65Green,  Wm.  M.,  Life  of  A.  L.  P.  Green,  167. 

^Bedford,  pp.  214-5;  301. 


120  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

The  eleven  delegates  from  the  three  conferences  in  Ten- 
nessee —  Holston,  Tennessee,  and  Memphis  —  to  the  general 
conference  in  1844,  sharing  the  above  feeling,  voted  solidly 
against  the  Finley  Resolution.  These  annual  conferences 
at  their  next  meeting  sustained  the  action  of  their  delegates. 
The  Holston  conference  said,  "That  our  delegates  to  the  last 
General  convention  merit  the  warmest  expression  of  our 
thanks,  for  their  prudent,  yet  firm,  course  in  sustaining 
the  interests  of  our  beloved  Methodism  in  the  South/'67  The 
Tennessee  conference  said,  "That  we  do  most  cordially  ap- 
prove the  course  of  our  delegates,  in  the  late  general  con- 
ference."68 The  Memphis  conference  said,  "That  we  do 
heartily  approve  the  entire  course  pursued  by  our  delegates 
at  the  late  general  conference."69  These  resolutions  also 
demanded  that  the  convention  at  Louisville  establish  a  co- 
ordinate branch  of  Methodism  under  a  general  conference 
in  accordance  with  the  plan  adopted  by  the  conference  of 
1844,  "and,  in  so  doing,"  they  said,  "we  positively  disavow 
secession,  but  declare  ourselves,  by  the  act  of  the  general 
conference,  a  coordinate  branch)  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church."70 

Tennessee  Methodists  sent  twenty-two  delegates  to  the 
Louisville  convention  of  1845.  71  They  voted  for  the  follow- 
ing resolution,  which  the  conference  adopted  without  a  dis- 
senting vote,  as  its  interpretation  of  the  law  of  the  church 
on  slavery  : 

That  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  gen- 
eral rule  (or  law)  of  the  church,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  own- 
ership of  slave  property  in  states  or  territories 
where  the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation  and 
permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  con- 
stitutes no  legal  barrier  to  the  election  or  ordina- 
tion of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office 
known  in  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 

67Bedford,  p.  601. 
eslbid.,  p.  603. 
«»Ibid.,  p.  605. 
lbid.,  p.  600. 


™ 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  121 

Church,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  as 
operating  any  forfeiture  of  rights,  in  view  of  such 
election  and  ordination.72 

After  the  organization  of  the  Southern  branch  of  Meth- 
odism, strong  efforts  were  made  along  the  border  confer- 
rences  to  induce  them  to  go  with  the  Northern  branch.  The 
Holston  Conference,  which  included  East  Tennessee,  with 
only  one  dissenting  vote,  resolved  to  cast  its  lot  with  the 
new  organization.  This  one  dissenter  later  joined  the  M.  E. 
Church,  South.73  There  was  no  question  of  loyalty  in  the 


71Bedford,  p.  423. 

72Ibid.,  p.  449. 

73These   resolutions    show   the   frame    of   mind   of   these    people: 

"Whereas,  the  long-continued  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
and  abolition  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did,  at  the  General 
Conference  of  said  church,  held  in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  May, 
1844,  result  in  the  adoption  of  certain  measures  by  that  body  which 
seriously  threatened  a  disruption  of  the  Church;  and  to  avert  this 
calamity,  said  General  Conference  did  devise  and  adopt  a  plan  con- 
templating the  peaceful  separation  of  the  South  and  the  North;  and 
constituting  the  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  the  sole 
judges  of  the  necessity  for  such  separation;  and,  whereas,  the  con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  ac- 
corded to  them  by  the  General  Conference,  did,  by  their  representa- 
tives in  convention  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May  last,  decide  that  sepa- 
ration was  necessary,  and  proceeded  to  organize  themselves  into  a 
separate  and  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  under  the  style  and 
title  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  basing  their  claim 
to  a  legitimate  relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  upon  their  unwavering  adherence  to  the  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  said  church  in  1844, 
and  their  devotion  to  the  doctrines,  discipline,  and  usages  of  the 
church  as  they  received  them  from  their  fathers. 

And  as  the  Plan  of  Separation  provides  that  the  conferences  bor- 
dering on  the  geographical  lines  of  separation  shall  decide  their  re- 
lation by  the  votes  of  the  majority  .  .  .  and  also  that  ministers  of 
every  grade  shall  make  their  election  North  or  South  without  censure 
— therefore, 

1.  Resolved,  That  we  now  proceed  to  determine  the  question  of 
our  eccleciastical  relation  by  the  vote  of  the  conference. 

2.  That  we,  the  members  of  the  Holston  Annual  Conference,  claim- 
ing all  the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  an  Annual  Conference  of 
the   Methodist    Church   in    the   United    States,    do   hereby   make    an 
election  with,  and  adhere  to,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 


122  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

other  conferences.  There  were  Methodists  throughout  the 
state  who  still  adhered  to  the  "Old  Church."  Even  in  West 
Tennessee,  in  certain  counties  there  were  strong  organiza- 
tions of  the  "Old  Church"  that  still  persist. 

The  Southern  Methodists  increased  their  activities 
among  the  slaves  after  1845.  The  slaveholders  were  now 
assured  that  no  insurrectionary  doctrines  would  be  taught 
to  their  slaves.  "Masters  and  mistresses,  even  little  chil- 
dren," says  Harrison,  "helped  with  the  work."74  In  1846, 
the  Southern  Methodists  had  29  missions  in  Tennessee  with 
7,100  members  in  charge  of  34  missionaries  who  received 
$7,762  ;75  in  1863  there  were  41  missions  with  5,947  mem- 

3.  That  while  we  thus  declare  our  adherence  to   the   Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  we  repudiate  the  idea  of  secession  in  any 
schismatic  or  offensive  sense  of  the  phrase,  as  we  neither  give  up 
nor  surrender  anything  which  we  have  received  as  constituting  any 
part  of  Methodism,  and  adhere  to  the  Southern  ecclesiastical  organi- 
zation.    Plan  of  Separation,  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at  its  session  in  New  York  in  May, 
1844. 

4.  That  we  are  satisfied  with  our  Book  of  Discipline  as  it  is  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  as  recorded  in  that  book;  and^that  we  will 
not  tolerate  any  change  whatever,  except  such  verbal  and  unimpor- 
tant alterations  as  may,  in  the  judgment  of  the  General  Conference, 
facilitate  the  work  in  which  we  are  engaged,  and  promote  uniformity 
and  harmony  in  our  administration. 

5.  That  the  journals  of  our  present  session,  as  well  as  all  our 
official  business,  be  henceforth  conformed  in  style  and  title  to  our 
ecclesiastical  relation. 

6.  That  it  is  our  desire  to  cultivate  and  maintain  fraternal  rela- 
tions with  our  brethren  of  the  North.     And  we  do  most  sincerely 
deprecate  the  continuance  of  paper  warfare  either  toy  editors  or  cor- 
respondents, in  our  official  church  papers,  and  devoutly  pray  for  th-^ 
speedy  return  of  peace  and  harmony  in  the  Church,  both  North  and 
South. 

7.  That  the  Holston  Annual   Conference  most  heartily  commend 
the  course  of  our  beloved   Bishops,   Saule  and  Andrew,  during  the 
recent  agitations  which  have  resulted  in  the  territorial  and  jurisdic- 
tional   separation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal   Church,  and  that  we 
tender  them  our  thanks  for  their  steady  adherence  to  principle  and 
the  best  interests  of  the  slave  population. — Bedford,  pp.  500-503. 

74Harrison,  302. 
318. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  123 

bers  in  charge  of  39  missionaries  receiving  $11,748.46.76 
The  difference  in  the  attitude  of  the  Methodist  slaveholders 
after  the  organization  of  the  Southern  church  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  from  1829  to  1844  Tennessee  Methodist  spent 
$23,208.01  on  slave  missions,  but  from  1844  to  1864  they 
spent  $213,736.62.77.  The  Southern  Methodists  numbered 
18,122  negro  members  in  1846  ;78  18,045  in  1848  ;79  18,940 
in  1850  ;80  18,748  in  1842  ;81  19,239  in  I860.81  From  1860  to 
1864  there  was  a  gradual  loss  of  negro  membership,  due,  of 
course,  to  the  various  influences  and  tendencies  of  the  war 
period.82  Some  of  the  conferences  did  not  meet  regularly 
during  the  war,  and  some  met  in  other  states.  The  statis- 
tics are  incomplete  and  inaccurate.83 

The  interpretation  of  the  laws  of  the  church  on  slavery 
remained  unchanged  to  1858.  In  that  year,  the  General 
Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  met  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  at  Nashville,  with  151  accredited  delegates. 
This  conference  declared  "that  slavery  is  not  a  subject  of 
ecclesiastical  legislation.  It  is  not  the  province  of  the 
church  to  deal  with  civil  institutions  in  her  legislative  ca- 
pacity. .  .  .  We  have  surrendered  to  Caesar  the  things  that 
are  Caesar's,  and  holding  ourselves  to  be  debtors  to  the  wise 
and  the  unwise,  the  bond  and  the  free.  We  can  now  preach 
Christ  alike  to  master  and  the  servant,  secure  in  the  con- 
fidence and  affection  of  the  one  and  the  other  .  .  .  The 
salvation  of  the  colored  race  in  our  midst,  as  far  as  human 
instrumentality  can  secure  it,  is  the  primary  duty  of  the 
southern  church."84  They  struck  from  their  Discipline  at 


76Harrison,  324. 

"Ibid.,  326. 

78Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences  of  M.  E.  Church,  South,  I, 
1845-1859,  16-25. 

79Ibid.,  167,  172,  181. 

s°Ibid.,  273,  290,  295. 

silbid.,  385,  392,  403. 

82Ibid.,  II,  214,  218,  223. 

83Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conference  of  M.  E.  Church,  South,  II, 
1845-1859,  214,  218,  203. 

8*American  Church  History,  XI,  pp.  66-7. 


124  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

this  meeting  by  a  vote  of  140  to  8  the  rule  forbidding  "the 
buying  and  selling  of  men,  women,  and  children,  with  in- 
tention to  enslave  them."85 

The  social  side  of  the  relations  of  the  two  races  in  their 
religious  life  is  very  interesting.  The  two  races  came  very 
close  together.  The  negroes  were  called  together  by  a  horn 
or  a  bell  once  a  day  for  family  prayer  in  which  the  master, 
mistress,  and  the  children  participated.  Sometimes  the 
master  conducted  the  services,  and  sometimes  a  slave  would 
do  it.  Slaves  sang  at  these  services,  and  frequently  became 
so  religious  as  to  embrace  their  master  and  mistress  before 
the  close  of  service.  In  their  religious  life,  slaves  became 
little  children  indeed. 

On  Sunday  as  a  rule,  the  slaves  attended  church  with  the 
white  folks.  They  either  sat  in  the  galleries  or  had  a 
special  portion  of  the  church  set  apart  for  them.  They 
were  given  the  communion  after  the  white  people  had  been 
served.  There  was  usually  in  the  afternoon  on  Sunday  a 
special  service  for  the  slaves,  conducted  by  the  pastor  of  the 
church,  and  there  was  generally  a  separate  business  meet- 
ing for  the  slaves.  At  these  separate  services,  the  slaves 
practically  had  charge.  Their  own  leaders,  exhorters,  and 
preachers  were  merely  directed  by  the  white  pastor.  It  was 
in  these  meetings  that  they  received  their  greatest  training 
and  had  their  truest  religious  experience.86 

Few  men  knew  the  negro  so  well  as  the  Methodist 
preacher,  or  did  so  much  to  elevate  his  character.  He  pre- 
sided nt  their  church  trials,  of  which  one  of  their  number 
was  secretary.  He  was  the  general  umpire  to  whom  all 
their  church  difficulties  were  referred.  He  baptized  them, 
married  them,  visited  them  in  their  cabins,  comforted  them 
in  their  distress,  prayed  with  them  when  on  beds  of  sick- 
ness, was  their  counsellor,  friend,  and  spiritual  guide,  and 
he  preached  their  funerals  when  they  died.87 

The  Methodist  people  did  more  for  the  negro  than  any 

8526th  Annual  Report  of  American  Anti-slavery  Society,  1859,  115. 

86McTyeire,  III,  536. 

"Milburn,  W.  H.,  Ten  Years  of  a  Preacher's  Life,  337. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  125 

other  denomination,  whether  for  abolition  or  for  their  gen- 
eral improvement.  Peter  Cartwright  once  said  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  "been  the  cause  of  the 
emancipation  of  more  slaves  in  these  United  States  than  all 
other  religious  denominations  put  together."88  "It  is  a 
notorious  fact,"  said  Cartwright,  "that  all  the  preachers 
from  the  slaveholding  states  denounced  slavery  as  a  moral 
evil;  but  asked  of  the  General  Conference  mercy  and  for- 
bearance on  account  of  the  civil  disabilities  they  labored 
under  so  that  we  got  along  tolerably  smooth.  I  do  not  recol- 
lect a  single  Methodist  preacher  at  that  day  that  justified 
slavery.  .  .  .  Methodist  preachers  in  those  days  made  it  a 
matter  of  conscience  not  to  hold  their  fellow  creatures  in 
bondage,  if  it  was  practicable  to  emancipate  them,  conform- 
ably to  the  laws  of  the  state  in  which  they  lived.  Meth- 
odism increased  and  spread,  and  many  Methodist  preachers, 
taken  from  comparative  poverty,  not  able  to  own  a  negro, 
and  who  preached  loudly  against  it,  improved  and  became 
popular  among  slaveholding  families,  and  became  person- 
ally interested  in  slave  property.  They  then  began  to  apol- 
ogize for  the  evil;  then  to  justify  it,  on  legal  principles; 
then  on  Bible  principles."8* 
II.  THE  BAPTISTS. 

The  Baptists  were  among  the  original  settlers  in  Tennes- 
see. They  were  strong  in  North  Carolina  by  1750,90  and 
by  1780  were  coming  into  Tennessee  from  both  Virginia 
and  North  Carolina  in  great  numbers.91  They  settled  in 
the  Holston  country  and  on  Boone's  Creek,  but  they  were 
not  so  numerous  in  these  early  days  as  the  Presbyterians 
and  Methodists.92  In  1784  there  were  400  Baptists  in  Ten- 
nessee; 900  in  1792,  and  11,325  in  181293 


88Cartwright,  Fifty  Years  a  Presiding  Elder,  p.  24. 
89Cartwright,  Autobiography,  p.  157. 
90Col.  Recs.,  Ill,  p.  48. 
91Garrett  and  Goodpasture,  p.  156. 

»2Newman,  A.  H.,  History  of  Baptist  Churches  in  United  States, 
p.  338. 

93Briggs,  Charles  A.,  American  Presbyterianism,  pp.  59-60. 


126  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

The  Baptists  were  anti-slavery  in  the  early  period  of 
American  history,  just  as  were  the  Methodists.  1783  the 
Baptists  said : 

It  is  the  duty  of  every  master  of  a  family  to  give 
his  slaves  liberty  to  attend  the  worship  of  God  in 
his  family,  and  likewise  it  is  his  duty  to  convince 
them  of  their  duty ;  and  then  to  leave  them  to  their 
own  choice.93 

In  1789  John  Leland  proposed  the  following  resolution  in 
the  Triennial  Convention,  which  was  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  slavery  is  a  violent  deprivation 
of  the  rights  of  nature,  and  inconsistent  with  a  re- 
publican government,  and  therefore  recommend 
it  to  our  brethren,  to  make  use  of  every  legal  mea- 
sure to  extirpate  this  horrid  evil  from  the  land; 
and  pray  Almighty  God  that  our  honorable  legis- 
lature may  have  it  in  their  power  to  proclaim  the 
great  Jubilee  consistent  with  the  principles  of  good 
policy.94 

This  protest,  while  very  strong  in  its  declaration,  was  in- 
effective. The  Baptists  were  no  exception  to  mankind  as 
to  slaveholding.  The  Baptists  became  slaveholders  in  large 
numbers,  and  adopted  the  policy  that  it  was  the  work  of 
the  church  to  mitigate  slavery  into  a  humane  institution.95 

The  Baptists  were  more  successful  in  adding  negroes  to 
the  church  than  any  other  denomination.  There  are  more 
negroes  in  the  Baptist  church  today  than  in  all  other 
churches  combined.  One  out  of  every  five  Southern  negroes 
is  a  Baptist.96  In  1813,  there  were  40,000  negro  Baptists, 
mostly  in  the  South,  among  whom  were  a  great  many  negro 
preachers  and  exhorters.97 

Among  the  attractive  features  of  the  Baptist  faith  to  the 
negroes  were  immersion,  the  congregational  form  of  gov- 

94Newman,  p.  305. 

ssibid.,  p.  338. 

96Pius,  N.  H.,  An  Outline  of  Baptist  History,  p.  131. 

97Harrison,  pp.  65,  91. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  127 

ernment.  which  gave  them  participation  in  church  meetings, 
the  liberality  of  the  Baptists  in  permitting  them  to  preach, 
and  the  Baptist  method  of  communion,  which  did  not  dis- 
criminate against  them.98  These  advantages  of  Baptism" 
caused  negroes  to  withdraw  from  other  churches.100 

The  Baptists  despite  the  advantages  that  a  form  of  local 
church  government  gave  them  in  handling  the  slavery  ques- 
tion, were  not  able  to  prevent  its  frequent  discussion.  It 
was  not  so  difficult  for  the  individual  congregations  to  settle 
the  matter  by  a  majority  vote  and  select  a  preacher  whose 
views  agreed  with  the  majority.  But  it  was  inevitable  that 
the  forces  that  finally  united  the  Southern  Methodists  would 
produce  the  same  effect  upon  the  Southern  Baptists.  The 
Southern  Baptists  were  among  the  largest  slaveholders  of 
the  South,  and  in  due  time  came  to  be  defenders  of  slavery, 
while  Northern  Baptists  became  increasingly  anti-slavery.101 

That  separation  was  inevitable  was  evident  to  many  of 
the  leaders,  although  both  Northern  and  Southern  Baptists 
tried  to  relegate  slavery  to  the  background.  Rev.  Richard 
Fuller  was  one  of  the  first  to  see  this  impending  division 
in  the  church,  and  he  hastened  to  take  steps  to  prevent  it. 
He  tried  to  distinguish  between  the  church  as  an  organiza- 
tion and  its  membership.  In  the  Triennial  Convention  of 
1844  he  secured  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  to  the  effect 
that  as  a  church  they  should  disclaim  all  sanction  of  slavery 
or  anti-slavery,  either  expressed  or  implied,  but  that  as  in- 
dividuals they  should  have  the  freedom  both  to  express  and 
to  promote  their  views  on  these  subjects  in  a  Christian 
manner  and  spirit.102 

This  was  apparently  a  happy  solution  of  the  question,  a 
philosophical  way  to  handle  the  problem,  but  slavery  would 
not  down.  The  incident  that  most  of  all  precipitated  the 
organization  of  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention  was  the 


9*Col.  Recs.  VIII,  164. 

"Buckley,  James  M.,  History  of  Methodism,  I,  373,  375. 
10°Harrison,  58. 

101Riley,  B.  F.,  History  of  the  Baptists  in  Southern  States  East  of 
the  Mississippi,  p.  199. 
102Ibid.,  p.  201. 


128  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

attitude  of  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  church. 
This  board,  apparently  on  its  own  initiative,  adopted  in 
1844  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that, 

In  the  thirty  years  in  which  the  board  has  ex- 
isted, no  slaveholder,  to  our  knowledge,  has  applied 
to  'be  a  missionary.  And  as  we  send  out  no  do- 
mestics, or  servants,  such  an  event  as  a  missionary 
taking  slaves  with  him,  were  it  morally  right,  could 
not,  in  accordance  with  all  our  past  arrangements 
and  present  plans,  possibly  occur.  If,  however, 
anyone  should  offer  himself  as  a  missionary,  hav- 
ing slaves,  and  should  insist  on  retaining  them  as 
his  property,  we  can  never  be  a  party  to  any  ar- 
rangements which  would  imply  approbation  of 
slavery.103 

The  American  Baptist  Home  Missionary  Society  in  April, 
1845,  found  itself  in  the  same  predicament  that  the  Foreign 
Missionary  Society  was  facing.  This  board  said :  "We  de- 
clare it  expedient  that  members  shall  hereafter  act  in  sepa- 
rate organizations,  at  the  South  and  at  the  North,  in  pro- 
moting the  objects  which  were  originally  contemplated  by 
the  society."103 

This  announcement  of  policy  was  regarded  by  the  South- 
ern Baptists  as  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  convention 
of  the  church.  This  policy  was  soon  put  into  effect  by  the 
rejection  of  Rev.  James  E.  Reeves,  a  slaveholder  and  appli- 
cant to  become  a  missionary.103  This  was  a  challenge  that 
was  immediately  accepted.  The  Southern  Baptists  said : 
"This  is  forbidding  us  to  speak  to  the  Gentiles  .  .  .  We  will 
never  interfere  with  what  is  Caesar's.  We  will  not  com- 
promise what  is  God's."104 

The  Southern  Baptist  Convention  was  organized  at  Au- 
gusta, Georgia,  in  the  summer  of  1845.  There  were  377 
delegates  present.  They  said  that  "a  painful  division  has 
taken  place  in  the  missionary  operations  of  the  American 
Baptists  .  .  .  They  differ  in  no  article  of  the  faith.  They 
are  guided  by  the  same  principles  of  gospel  order."105 


p.  205. 

104Proceedings  of  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  1845,  pp.  18,  19. 
i°5Riley,  p.  211. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  129 

The  Tennessee  Baptists  were,  like  the  Baptists  as  a  whole, 
divided  on  the  question  of  slavery.  In  general,  the  attitude 
of  the  National  Triennial  Convention  down  to  1845  reflects 
the  opinion  of  Tennessee  Baptists.  There  are  no  local  his- 
tories nor  any  minutes  of  local  bodies  that  give  us  any  in- 
sight into  the  particular  feelings  of  different  groups  of 
Baptists  in  Tennessee.  Tennessee  Baptists  went  with  the 
Southern  Convention  in  1845,  but  there  were  anti-slavery 
Baptists  scattered  throughout  the  state. 

One  of  the  most  noted  of  the  anti-slavery  Baptists  in  Ten- 
nessee was  Professor  J.  M.  Pendleton,  of  Union  University, 
Murfreesboro,  Tennessee  (now  at  Jackson,  Tennessee) . 
Professor  Pendleton  was  born  in  Virginia  in  1811.  He 
moved  to  Kentucky  in  1817  and  to  Tennessee  in  1857.  He 
was  in  1858  professor  of  theology  at  Union,  and  joint  editor 
with  Rev.  A.  C.  Dayton  of  the  Tennessee  Baptist,  published 
at  Nashville,  and  was  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Southern 
Baptist  Review.106 

In  1858,  Dr.  Dawson,  editor  of  the  Alabama  Baptist,  ac- 
cused him  of  being  an  abolitionist.  He  was  brought  before 
the  board  of  trustees  of  Union.  Professor  Pendleton  ex- 
plained the  charge  in  the  following  way:  "I  suppose  he 
(Dawson)  made  no  distinction  between  an  'Abolitionist' 
and  'Emancipationist.'  The  latter  was  in  favor  of  doing 
away  with  slavery  gradually,  according  to  state  constitution 
and  law:  the  former  believed  slavery  to  be  a  sin  in  itself, 
calling  for  immediate  abolition  without  regard  to  conse- 
quences. I  was  an  Emancipationist  .  .  .  but  I  was  never 
for  a  moment  an  Abolitionist."107  He  frankly  stated  his 
views  before  the  board,  and  was  acquitted.108 

106Pendleton,  J.  M.,  Reminiscenes  of  a  Long  Life,  p.  112. 

"'Ibid.,  113. 

io8professor  Pendleton  remained  at  Union  University  during  the 
war  and  was  a  loyal  unionist.  He  preached  on  Sunday  and  worked 
on  the  farm  during  the  week.  He  constantly  expected  to  be  taken 
from  his  home  and  hanged.  He  always  prepared  at  night  a  method 
of  escape,  yet  he,  despite  proposals  by  the  citizens  of  the  community 
to  hang  him,  never  had  to  execute  his  plans.  He  lived  in  constant 
fear  untill  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland  occupied  Murfreesboro  in 
1863.— Pendleton,  op.  cit.,  127. 


130  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

The  Southern  Baptists  made  special  effort  to  evangelize 
the  slaves  after  their  separate  organization  was  accom- 
plished. "This  department  of  our  labor,"  says  the  report 
of  1845,  "is  increasing  in  interest  every  year.  Whenever 
it  is  practicable,  the  missionaries  of  the  board  hold  separate 
services  for  the  special  benefit  of  the  slaves.  And  all  bear 
favorable  testimony  to  the  happy  influence  of  the  Gospel 
upon  the  hearts  and  lives  of  that  people.  Their  owners 
are  becoming  more  and  more  awake  to  their  special  wants. 
Some  are  erecting  houses  of  worship  on  their  plantations, 
others  are  making  liberal  donations  to  sustain  the  ministry 
among  them."109  The  general  proposition  of  the  convention 
to  any  local  church  was  that  it  would  pay  half  the  expense 
of  a  mission  among  the  negroes  if  the  church  would  pay  the 
other  half.  In  1855,  the  Baptists  had  missions  at  Rogers- 
ville,  Knoxville,  Chattanooga,  Cumberland  Mountains,  Hunt- 
ingdon, and  Memphis.110 

The  convention  of  1859  said: 

Our  slaves,  too,  demand  our  attention.  They 
form  part  of  our  families,  speak  our  language,  are 
easy  of  access,  and  are  impressible  beyond  any 
other  people.  They  number  more  than  three  and 
a  half  million,  and  out  of  this  multitude  scarcely 
more  than  three  or  four  hundred  thousand  are  pro- 
fessed Christians.111 

The  character  of  the  slave  converts  as  given  by  Rev.  Pen- 
dleton,  seemed  to  justify  the  efforts  of  the  church.  He  said, 
"I  saw  among  them  in  the  days  of  slavery  as  pious  Chris- 
tians as  I  ever  saw  anywhere.  They  attended  church,  oc- 
cupied the  place  assigned  them  in  the  meeting-house,  and 
partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  their  white  brethren."122 
The  special  training  that  the  negroes  received  in  the  Bap- 
tist church  largely  prepared  them  to  establish  and  manage 
their  own  churches.  "The  first  negro  Baptist  church  in 

109Proceedings  of  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  1845,  p.  35. 
"oibid.,  p.  28. 

^Proceedings  of  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  1859-60,  p.  89. 
112Pendleton,  p.  127. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  131 

Tennessee,"  says  Pius,  "was  the  Mt.  Lebanon  Baptist 
Church,  organized  at  Columbia,  October  20,  1843."113  This 
church  now  has  a  membership  of  200  and  property  worth 
$15,000.  In  1853,  Spruce  Street  Baptist  Church  was  built 
at  Nashville.  Beal  Street  Church  at  Memphis  was  also 
one  of  the  early  negro  churches. 

III.    CUMBERLAND  PRESBYTERIANS. 

The  Cumberland  Presbyterians  present  the  interesting 
situation  of  a  church  originating  in  a  slave  state  after 
slavery  was  rather  substantially  established.  This  church 
was  organized  in  Tennessee  in  1810  in  the  log  cabin  of 
Samuel  McAdoo.  Samuel  McAdoo,  Finis  Ewing,  and  Sam- 
uel King,  all  ordained  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
were  the  constituent  founders  of  the  first  Presbytery.114 
Of  these  three  cofounders,  Ewing  was  a  slaveholder,  but  he 
soon  emancipated  his  slaves.115 

One  would  expect  this  church,  born  of  the  environment 
of  slavery,  to  be  rather  mild  in  its  opposition  to  slavery,  if, 
indeed,  not  pro-slavery,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was 
strongly  anti-slavery.  Ewing,  after  freeing  his  slaves, 
boldly  preached  against  "the  traffic  in  human  flesh."  He 
said: 

But  where  shall  we  begin  ?  Oh !  is  it  indeed  true 
that  in  this  enlightened  age,  there  are  so  many  pal- 
pable evils  in  the  church  that  it  is  difficult  to  know 
where  to  commence  enumerating  them?  The  first 
evil  which  I  shall  mention  is  a  traffic  in  human 
flesh  and  human  souls.  It  is  true  that  many  pro- 
fessors of  religion,  and,  I  fear,  some  of  my  Cum- 
berland brethren,  do  not  scruple  to  sell  for  life 
their  fellow-beings,  some  of  whom  are  brethren 
in  the  Lord.  And  what  is  worse,  they  are  not 
scrupulous  to  whom  they  sell,  provided  they  can 
obtain  a  better  price.  Sometimes  husbands  and 
wives,  parents  and  children,  are  thus  separated, 


,  p.  61. 

114Garrett  and  Goodpasture,  160. 

115McDonald,  B.  W.,  History  of  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church, 
p.  411. 


132  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

and  I  doubt  not  their  cries  reach  the  ears  of  the 
Lord  of  Sabbath  .  .  .  Others  who  constitute  a  part 
of  the  visible  Church  half  feed,  half  clothe,  and 
oppress  the  servants.  Indeed,  they  seem  by  their 
conduct  toward  them,  not  to  consider  them  fellow- 
beings.  And  it  is  to  be  feared  that  many  of  them 
are  taking  no  pains  at  all  to  give  their  servants 
religious  instruction  of  any  kind,  and  especially 
are  they  making  no  efforts  to  teach  them  or  cause 
them  to  be  taught  to  read  that  Book  which  testifies 
of  Jesus,  whilst  others  permit,  perhaps  require, 
their  servants  to  work,  cook,  etc.,  while  the  white 
people  are  praying  around  the  family  altar.116 

He  says  again,  "I  have  determined  not  to  hold,  nor  to 
give,  nor  to  sell,  nor  to  buy  any  slave  for  life.  Mainly  from 
the  influence  of  that  passage  of  God's  word  which  says, 
'Masters,  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is  just  and 
equal/  "11T 

Samuel  McAdoo,  one  of  the  three  founders  of  the  church, 
and  a  Cumberland  preacher,  was  a  most  outspoken  oppo- 
nent of  slavery.  He  did  not  want  his  family  through  mar- 
riage or  inheritance  or  otherwise  to  become  connected  with 
it.  To  accomplish  this  he  joined  the  contingent  of  anti- 
slavery  leaders  that  Tennessee  contributed  to  the  North- 
west. He  moved  to  Illinois,  where  he  could  preach  his 
convictions  without  fear  and  trembling.117 

Some  of  the  early  Cumberland  preachers,  who  were  very 
conscientious  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  wanted  to  free  their 
slaves,  but  they  did  not  believe  they  could  be  self-sustaining 
and  independent  members  of  society.  Rev.  Ephriam  Mc- 
Lean was  one  of  these  who  decided  that  he  would  perform 
the  experiment  of  giving  his  slaves  a  chance  to  demonstrate 
that  they  could  be  self-supporting.  He  gave  his  slaves  the 
use  of  a  farm,  farming  implements,  and  live  stock  adequate 
for  their  purposes,  and  set  them  free  to  work  for  them- 
selves. In  a  few  years  idleness  and  drunkenness  brought 

116Cossitt,  Franceway  Ranna,  The  Life  of  Rev.  Finis  Ewing,  p.  273. 
117McDonald,  p.  411. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  133 

them  to  suffering,  and  they  begged  him  to  take  them  back. 
He  did  so.118 

Rev.  Robert  Donnel,  a  Cumberland  minister,  inherited 
slaves.  He  taught  his  slaves  the  Scriptures  and  called  them 
to  family  prayer  daily.  He  wanted  to  free  his  slaves,  but 
they  did  not  wish  freedom,  because  they  did  not  want  to  go 
to  Liberia.119  The  free  states  at  the  North  did  not  want 
them.  He  could  not  drive  them  to  Africa.  The  state  would 
not  let  him  free  them  unless  he  sent  them  outside  of  it,  so 
he  did  not  know  how  to  dispose  of  them.119 

Southern  anti-slavery  men  would  buy  the  slaves  of  their 
own  brothers  to  keep  them  from  being  sold  separately  to  pay 
their  debts.  Such  men  would  intend  to  emancipate  these 
slaves,  but  they  would  soon  discover  that  the  slaves  had 
rather  die  than  be  sent  to  Canada  or  Africa.  They  re- 
mained slaveholders  because  they  had  a  real  interest  in 
negroes.  In  1855,  Dr.  Beard,  a  leading  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterian minister,  said,  "the  longer  I  live  the  more  deeply 
I  regret  that  I  ever  became  involved  in  it.  My  heart  always 
hated  it,  and  now  loathes  it  more  and  more  every  day."120 

Not  only  were  the  leading  ministers  in  the  Church  anti- 
slavery,  but  the  literature  of  the  Church  denounced  slavery, 
and  the  legislation  of  the  Southern1  States.  The  Revivalist, 
a  Cumberland  paper  published  at  Nashville  from  1830  to 
1836,  speaking  of  legislation  of  South  Carolina  upon  slavery, 
said :  "Such  acts  are  foul  blots  upon  the  records  of  a  free 
people,  which  our  posterity  will  blush  to  behold.  They  are 
not  only  unjust  and  cruel  but  actually  impolitic." 

"The  extensive  slaveholder,"  said  the  Revivalist,  "is  at 
too  great  a  remove  from  the  slave  to  learn  the  workings  of 
his  mind  and  the  feelings  of  his  heart.  There  is  no  contact 
of  feeling,  no  interchange  of  sympathies  between  most 
Southern  planters  and  their  servants.  They  govern,  con- 
trol, and  direct  their  slaves  by  proxy ;  and  too  many  masters 

118Letters  furnished  by  Hon.  F.  E.  McLean  (Quoted  by  McDonald, 
412). 

^McDonald,  p.  412. 

i2°Diary  of  Beard,  A.  J.,  July  11,  1855. 


134  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

are  dependent  upon  their  representatives  of  heartless  over- 
seers for  a  knowledge  of  the  character  and  disposition  of 
their  own  slaves.  Southern  planters,  who  govern  by  proxy, 
are,  therefore,  unprepared  to  do  justice  to  the  African 
character."121 

The  Revivalist  exhorted  slaveholders  to  teach  their  slaves 
to  read  and  to  give  them  moral  and  religious  instruction. 
This,  it  said,  "will  not  only  make  better  men  of  them  but 
better  servants."122 

The  Cumberland  Presbyterian,  of  Nashville,  mother  organ 
of  the  Church,  said  in  1835 :  "We  proclaim  it  abroad  we  do 
not  own  slaves.  We  never  shall.  We  long  to  see  the  black 
man  free  and  happy,  and  thousands  of  Christians  who  now 
hold  them  in  bondage  entertain  the  same  sentiments."123 

It  will  be  shown  in  the  chapter  on  abolition  that  a  change 
of  attitude  toward  slavery  followed  the  action  of  the  Con- 
vention of  1834.  The  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church 
was  no  exception  to  this  rule.  The  action  of  a  Pennsylvania 
Synod  in  1847  precipitated  the  issue.  This  Synod  met  and 
rescinded  its  action  at  a  previous  session  declaring  that  the 
relation  between  it  and  American  slavery  to  be  such  as  to 
require  "no  action  thereon,"  and  adopted  the  resolution, 
"That  the  system  of  slavery  in  the  United  States  is  contrary 
to  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  hinders  the  progress  thereof, 
and  ought  to  be  abolished."124 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  1848,  which  met 
at  Memphis,  appointed  a  committee  to  review  the  action  of 
the  Pennsylvania  Synod.  This  committee  in  its  report  re- 
gretted the  action  of  the  Synod  and  disapproved  "any  at- 
tempt by  jurisdiction  of  the  church  to  agitate  the  exciting 
subject  of  slavery,"  closing  with  the  observation  that  "the 
tendency  of  such  resolutions,  if  persisted  in,  we  believe  is  to 
gender  strife,  produce  distraction  in  the  church,  and  thereby 
hinder  the  progress  of  the  Gospel."125 

121McDonald,  p.  414. 

122Ibid.,  415. 

123The  Cumberland  Presbyterian,  August  19,  1835. 

i2*McDonald,  p.  417. 

i25Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1848,  pp.  12,  13. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  135 

The  General  Assembly  of  1851,  which  met  at  Pittsburg, 
received  six- memorials  on  slavery  from  Ohio  and  Pennsyl- 
vania with  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  signatures.126  The 
committee  to  whom  these  memorials  were  referred  made 
the  following  report,  which  was  adopted : 

The  Church  of  God  is  a  spiritual  body,  whose 
jurisdiction  extends  only  to  matters  of  faith  and 
morals.  She  has  no  power  to  legislate  upon  sub- 
jects on  which  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  not  leg- 
islate, nor  to  establish  terms  of  union,  where  they 
have  given  no  express  warrant.  Your  committee, 
therefore,  believe  that  this  question  on  which  you 
are  asked  by  the  memorialists  to  take  action,  is  one 
which  belongs  rather  to  civil  than  ecclesiastical  leg- 
islation ;  and  we  are  all  fully  persuaded  that  legis- 
lation on  that  subject  in  any  of  the  judicatories  of 
the  church,  instead  of  mitigating  the  evils  con- 
nected with  slavery,  will  only  have  a  tendency  to 
alienate  feeling  between  brethren;  to  engender 
strife  and  animosities  in  your  church;  and  tend, 
ultimately  to  a  separation  between  brethren  who 
hold  a  common  faith,  an  event  leading  to  the  most 
disastrous  results,  and  one  which  we  believe  ought 
to  be  deprecated  lay  every  true  patriot  and  Chris- 
tian. 

But  your  committee  believe  that  members  of  the 
church  holding  slaves  should  regard  them  as  ra- 
tional and  accountable  beings,  and  treat  them  as 
such,  affording  them  as  far  as  possible  the  means 
of  grace. 

Finally,  your  committee  would  recommend  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolutions : 

1.  That  inasmuch  as  the  Cumberland  Presby- 
terian Church  was  originally  organized  and  has 
since  existed  and  prospered  under  the  conceded 
principle  that  slavery  was  not  and  should  not  be 
regarded  as  a  bar  to  communion;  we,  therefore, 
believe  that  it  should  not  now  be  so  regarded. 

2.  That,  having  entire  confidence  in  the  hon- 
esty and  sincerity  of  the  memorialists  and  cherish- 
ing the  tenderest  regard  for  their  feelings  and 
opinions,  it  is  the  conviction  of  this  General  As- 

126Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1851,  p.  16. 


136  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

sembly  that  the  agitation  of  this  question  which 
has  already  torn  asunder  other  branches  of  the 
church,  can  be  productive  of  ho  real  benefit  to 
master  or  slave.  We  would,  therefore,  in  the  fear 
of  God,  and  with  the  utmost  solicitude  for  the 
peace  and  welfare  of  the  churches  under  our  care, 
advise  a  spirit  of  mutual  forbearance  and  broth- 
erly love ;  and,  instead  of  censure  and  proscription, 
that  we  endeavor  to  cultivate  a  fraternal  feeling 
one  toward  another.127 

This  platform  remained  the  orthodox  position  of  the 
Church  to  the  abolition  of  slavery.  The  Cumberland 
Church  was  primarily  a  Southern  church,  and,  therefore, 
never  divided  on  the  question.  It  would  have  suffered  very 
little  loss  of  either  membership  or  property  by  a  division. 

The  Cumberland  Church,  it  appears,  took  the  most  sens- 
ible position  on  the  slavery  question  of  any  of  the  churches 
in  Tennessee.  It  always  preached  abolition  and  ultimate 
freedom  as  the  final  solution  of  the  problem,  but,  at  no 
time  did  it  overlook  the  entire  set  of  facts  connected  with 
the  institution.  It  recognized  that  slavery  had  been  forced 
on  the  forefathers,  that  it  had  become  the  central  institution 
of  Southern  society,  that,  therefore,  it  would  be  violent  revo- 
lution to  abolish  the  institution  at  one  stroke  of  the  pen. 
It  appreciated  the  fact  that  only  a  small  part  of  the  slave 
population  was  ready  for  freedom  and  a  responsible  place 
in  the  body  politic.  The  Cumberland  Presbyterians  be- 
lieved that  slavery  was  an  evil,  but  denied  responsibility 
for  it.  They  thought  that  slavery  was  an  educating  insttu- 
tion,  that  the  rights  of  the  slave  should  be  restored  to  him 
as  fast  as  his  evolution  would  permit,  but  that  in  this  process 
the  welfare  of  society  as  a  whole  was  the  major  considera- 
tion. 

IV.    THE  FRIENDS. 

The  Quakers  led  decidedly  in  the  movement  of  abolition. 
As  early  as  1770  in  their  annual  meeting  attention  was 

127Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1851,  pp.  56,  57.  This  committee 
consisted  of  LeRoy  Woods,  Ind.,  A.  J.  Beard,  Ky.,  J.  J.  Meek,  Miss., 
N.  P.  Modrall,  Tenn.,  J.  H.  Coulter,  Ohio,  S.  E.  Hudson,  Penn.,  andi 
J.  C.  Henson,  Ind. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  137 

called  to  the  treatment  of  the  slave  and  to  "the  iniquitous 
practice  of  importing  negroes."128  In  1772  it  was  decided 
in  their  annual  meeting  that  no  Friend  should  buy  a  slave 
of  any  other  person  than  a  Friend  in  unity.  This  regulation 
might  be  violated  if  it  was  to  unite  husband  and  wife  or 
mother  and  children,  or  for  other  reasons  if  approved  by 
monthly  meeting.129  Advance  was  made  again  in  1774  and 
in  1775  when  the  yearly  meeting  decided  "That  Friends  in 
unity  shall  neither  buy  nor  sell  a  negro  without  the  consent 
of  the  monthly  meeting  to  which  they  belong."130  In  1776 
the  Friends  reached  complete  abolition.131  The  yearly 
meeting  advised  with  unanimity  that  the  members  of  the 
Friends'  Society  "clear  their  hands"  of  the  slaves  as  rapidly 
as  possible.  By  the  close  of  the  Revolution  the  Friends  were 
practically  rid  of  slaves.  In  the  year  1787  there  was  not  a 
slave  in  the  possession  of  an  acknowledged  Quaker.132  They 
never  recanted  on  this  proposition. 

The  attitude  of  the  Southern  Quakers  was  at  first  amelio- 
ration of  the  condition  of  the  slave.  They  were  interested 
in  the  physical  condition  of  the  negro,  possibly  as  much  for 
economic  reasons  as  for  altruistic  motives.133  In  North 
Carolina,  where  the  immediate  background  of  Tennessee 
Quakerism  is  found,  the  question  of  slavery  was  slow  in  ris- 
ing, but  soon  thereafter  became  a  very  stubborn  question.134 
The  yearly  meetings  of  1758  and  1770  took  decidedly  hostile 
attitude  toward  the  buying  and  selling  of  slaves,  and  de- 
manded that  those  that  were  inherited  be  treated  well.135 

The  Quakers  in  North  Carolina  worked  personally  among 
the  Friends  for  abolition  and  as  an  organization  they  peti- 
tioned the  Legislature  of  the  State  to  modify  its  laws  in  the 

128Weeks,  S.  B.,  Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery,  p.  199  (Baltimore, 
1896). 

129Ibid.,  p.  207. 
13°Ibid.,  207-8. 
131Ibid.,  208. 

132American  Church  History,  XII,  245. 
i33Weeks,  201. 
134Ibid.,  206. 
.,  207. 


138  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

direction  of  justice  and  mercy.  They  protested  bitterly 
against  free  negroes,  who  had  been  given  their  freedom  by 
conscientious  masters,  being  taken  to  other  states  and  sold 
into  slavery.136 

The  harshness  of  North  Carolina  law  created  a  modified 
Quakerism  not  to  be  found  elsewhere.  The  yearly  meeting 
created  agents  to  take  charge  of  slaves  that  masters  wanted 
to  manumit,  and  look  after  them.  By  this  method  they  pro- 
posed to  give  virtual  freedom  to  the  slaves  when  legal  free- 
dom was  not  recognized  by  the  state.137  This  practice  con- 
tinued to  the  Civil  War. 

The  Friends  in  Tennessee  not  only  refrained  from  owning 
slaves  themselves,  but  by  manumission  societies,  by  petitions 
to  legislatures,  and  by  abolition  literature,  sought  to  abolish 
slavery.  Reference  is  made  in  a  previous  chapter  to  the 
work  of  such  men  as  Embree,  Osborn,  and  Lundy,  who,  if 
they  had  remained  in  Tenessee  with  all  the  Friends,  instead 
of  going  to  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  might  have  helped  to 
bring  about  a  different  result.  Charles  Osborn,  who  was 
the  leader  in  organizing  the  Tennessee  Manumission  Society, 
and  who  moved  to  Ohio  and  began  publishing  the  Philan- 
thropist, an  anti-slavery  paper,  later  moved  to  Indiana, 
whither  he  was  followed  by  Jesse  Wills  and  John  Underbill, 
Friends  who  had  helped  to  organize  manumission  societies 
in  Tennessee.  The  Emancipator,  Embree's  publication,  re- 
ferring to  these  emigrations  to  the  North,  said :. 

Thousands  of  first-rate  citizens,  men  remarkable 
for  their  piety  and  virtue,  have  within  twenty 
years  past  removed  from  this  and  other  slave 
states,  to  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  that  their  eyes 
may  be  hid  from  seeing  the  cruel  oppressor  lacerate 
the  back  of  his  slaves,  and  that  their  ears  may  not 
hear  the  bitter  cries  of  the  oppressed.  I  have  often 
regretted  the  loss  of  so  much  virtue  from  these 
slave  states,  which  held  too  little  before.  Could 
all  those  who  have  removed  from  slave  states  on 
that  account,  to  even  the  single  state  of  Ohio,  have 


13«Weeks,  221. 
.,  225. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  139 

been  induced  to  remove  to,  and  settle  in  Tennessee 
with  their  high  toned  love  for  universal  liberty 
and  aversion  to  slavery,  I  think  that  Tennessee 
would  ere  this  have  begun  to  sparkle  among  the 
true  stars  of  liberty.138 

From  about  1809  to  1834,  the  Friends  in  Tennessee  were 
regularly  petitioning  the  Legislature  of  the  State.  Their 
petitions  usually  asked  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  if  pos- 
sible; if  not,  to  mitigate  the  evil  "of  separating  husbands, 
wives,  and  children."139  They  believed  that  the  elimination 
of  this  practice  would  make  the  slaves  more  virtuous  and 
increase  their  respect  for  the  marriage  relation.  They 
petitioned  against  the  domestic  slave  trade  as  they  saw  this 
was  increasing  the  grip  of  slavery  on  the  state. 

The  Friends  were  the  most  vigilant  anti-slavery  workers 
in  the  State.  If  all  the  Protestant  churches  had  been  as 
devoted  to  the  cause  of  freedom  in  the  early  days  of  the 
State  before  there  were  many  slaves  in  the  state  and  before 
West  Tennessee  was  settled,  the  story  of  the  Convention  of 
1834  would  likely  be  different.  The  Friends  like  the  other 
religionists  had  to  succumb  to  the  superior  pro-slavery 
forces  that  always  controlled  the  state  government. 

V.    THE  PRESBYTERIANS. 

The  Presbyterians  were  the  first  denomination  to  cross 
the  frontier  line  into  Tennessee.  Rev.  Charles  Cummings 
and  Rev.  John  Rhea,  both  of  this  church,  were  the  first 
preachers  in  Tennessee.140  "It  was  the  custom  of  Mr. 
Cummings  on  Sunday  morning,"  says  Goodspeed,  "to  dress 
himself  neatly,  put  on  his  shot  pouch,  shoulder  his  rifle, 
mount  his  horse,  and  ride  to  church,  where  he  would  meet 
his  congregation,  each  man  with  his  rifle  in  his  hand."  In 
1778  Samuel  Doak  was  called  to  the  congregations,  Concord 
and  Hopewell,  in  what  is  now  Sullivan  County.  Rev.  Doak 


138Hoss,  E.  E.,  Elihu  Embree,  Abolitionist,  p.  11. 
139Petition  of  Society  of  Friends,  1817   (Archives  of  State).     This 
petition  was  signed  by  Elihu  Embree  and  nine  other  Friends. 
140Goodspeed,  p.  645. 


140  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

in  1785  chartered  Martin  Academy,  first  educational  insti- 
tution west  of  the  Alleghanies.  In  1775  Abingdon  Presby- 
tery was  founded,  and  it  became  the  gateway  of  Presby- 
terianism  to  the  other  portions  of  the  State.  Thos.  B. 
Craighead  and  Rev.  William  McGee,  brother  of  the  Meth- 
odist John  McGee,  were  also  among  the  early  ministers  of 
this  denomination.141 

The  Presbyterians,  like  all  the  denominations  that  were 
national,  could  not  in  the  very  nature  of  things  remain  a 
unit  on  the  slavery  question.  The  question  came  up  in 
various  synods  in  1774,  1780,  and  1787,  when  the  synods  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia  declared  in  favor  of  training 
the  slaves  for  freedom.142 

The  question  reached  the  General  Assembly  in  1793  and 
1795,  when  it  was  decided  that  as  there  were  differences  of 
opinion  relative  to  slavery  among  the  members  of  the  church, 
"notwithstanding  which  they  live  in  charity  and  peace  ac- 
cording to  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  apostles,  it  is 


141Goodspeed,  p.  646. 

142Gillet,  E.  H.,  History  of  Presbyterian  Church  in  United  States 
of  America,  I,  201.  These  synods  said: 

"We  do  highly  approve  of  the  general  principles  in  favor  of  uni- 
versal liberty  that  prevail  in  America,  and  of  the  interest  which 
many  of  the  states  have  taken  in  promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
Yet,  inasmuch  as  men,  introduced  from  a  servile  state  to  a  participa- 
tion of  all  the  privileges  of  civil  society,  without  a  proper  education, 
and  without  previous  habits  of  industry,  may  be,  in  some  respects, 
dangerous  to  the  community;  therefore,  they  earnestly  recommend 
it  to  all  the  members  belonging  to  their  communion  to  give  those 
persons,  who  are  at  present  held  in  servitude,  such  good  education 
as  may  prepare  them  for  the  better  enjoyment  of  freedom.  And 
they  moreover  recommend  that  masters,  whenever  they  find  servants 
disposed  to  make  a  proper  improvement  of  that  privilege,  would  give 
them  some  share  of  property  to  begin  with,  or  grant  them  sufficient 
time  and  sufficient  means  of  procuring,  by  industry,  their  own  lib- 
erty; and  at  a  moderate  rate,  that  they  may  thereby  be  brought  into 
society  with  those  habits  of  industry  that  may  render  them  useful 
citizens;  and,  finally,  they  recommend  it  to  all  the  people  under  their 
care,  to  use  the  most  prudent  measures  consistent  with  the  interest 
and  the  state  of  civil  society  in  the  parts  where  they  live,  to  procure 
eventually  the  final  abolition  of  slavery  in  America." 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  141 

hereby  recommended  to  all  conscientious  persons,  and  espe- 
cially to  those  whom  it  immediately  respects,  to  do  the 
same."143 

At  this  same  assembly,  a  committee  made  a  strong  rec- 
ommendation, urging  religious  education  of  the  slave.  The 
assembly  rejected  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  said 
they  "have  taken  every  step  which  they  deem  expedient  or 
wise  to  encourage  emancipation,  and  to  render  the  state  of 
those  who  are  in  slavery  as  mild  and  tolerable  as  pos- 
sible."14* The  assembly  referred  the  members  of  the  church 
to  its  action  of  1787  and  1793  for  its  position  on  slavery. 

This  action  settled  the  question  for  20  years.  It  came  be- 
fore the  assembly  again  in  1815,  due  to  the  action  of  the 
Synod  of  Ohio.145  This  assembly  urged  religious  education 
and  the  use  of  prudent  measures  to  prevent  the  slave  traf- 
fic.145 The  assembly  of  1816  asked  that  masters  who  were 
members  of  the  church  present  the  children  of  parents  in 
servitude  for  baptism.146 

The  sale  of  a  slave  member  of  the  church  provoked  rather 


143Minutes  of  the  Assembly  of  1795,  Quoted  by  Gillet,  I,  284. 

144Ibid.,  p.  285.  The  committee  reported  that  "a  neglect  of  this 
(religious  education)  is  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  a  Christian 
master,  but  the  observance  might  prevent,  in  great  part,  what  is  really 
the  moral  evil  attending  slavery — namely,  allowing  precious  souls 
under  the  charge  of  masters  to  perish  for  lack  of  knowledge." 

145Gillett,  I,  453.  The  assembly  urged  religious  education  on  the 
slaves  "that  they  may  be  prepared  for  the  exercise  and  enjoyment  of 
liberty  when  God  in  his  providence  may  open  a  door  for  their  eman- 
cipation." As  to  buying  and  selling  of  slaves,  it  recommended 
"Presbyteries  and  Sessions  under  their  care  to  make  use  of  all  pru- 
dent measures  to  prevent  such  shameful  and  unrighteous  conduct." 

146Ibid.,  II,  pp.  239-41.  The  assembly  said:  "We  consider  the  vol- 
untary enslaving  of  one  part  of  the  human  race  by  another,  as  a 
gross  violation  of  the  most  precious  and  sacred  rights  of  human 
nature,  as  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  God,  which  requires 
us  to  love  our  neighbors  as  ourselves,  and  as  totally  irreconcilable 
with  the  spirit  and  principles  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  which  enjoins 
that  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye 
even  so  to  them." 


142  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

drastic  action  by  the  Assembly  of  1818,147  but  in  the  same 
proceedings  it  expressed  its  sympathy  for  those  upon  whom 
slavery  had  been  entailed  as  "a  great  and  most  virtuous 
part  of  the  community  abhor  slavery,  and  wish  its  extermi- 
nation as  sincerely  as  any  others."148 
The  Assembly  of  1825  said : 

We  notice  with  pleasure  the  enlightened  atten- 
tion which  has  been  paid  to  the  religious  instruc- 
tion and  evangelization  of  the  unhappy  slaves  and 
free  people  of  color  of  our  country  in  some  regions 
of  our  church  ...  No  more  honored  name  can  be 
conferred  on  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  than  that 
of  Apostle  to  the  American  Slaves ;  and  no  service 
can  be  more  pleasing  to  the  God  of  Heaven  or  more 
useful  to  our  beloved  country  than  that  which  this 
title  designates.148 

The  slavery  question  came  up  again  in  1836  when  the 
church  was  pretty  well  divided.  There  was  a  majority  re- 
port which  recommended  taking  no  action,  and  a  minority 
report  which  strongly  opposed  slavery.  The  majority  re- 
port was  accepted  by  the  assembly.148  Twenty-eight  mem- 
bers protested  this  action  of  the  assembly.  The  Presby- 
terians had  an  anti-slavery  element  all  along  that  they  could 
not  control.  This  element  separated  from  the  church  in 
1821  and  called  itself  the  Associated  Reformed  Presbyterian 
Church.149  There  was  a  second  element,  calling  itself  the 
New  School,  that  based  its  action  very  largely  on  slavery. 
This  element  kept  up  an  anti-slavery  propaganda,  repeating 
in  1846  and  in  1849,  the  slavery  declaration  of  1818.  The 
southern  and  more  conservative  element  was  able  to  control 
the  assembly,  and  in  1853  the  New  School  element  withdrew 


,  II,  241. 

14SIbid.,  242.  See  also  Fourth  Annual  Report  of  American  Anti- 
slavery  Society,  1837,  p.  62;  and  Patton,  Jacob  Harris,  Popular  His- 
tory of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  p.  444. 

149Thompson,  R.  E.,  History  of  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the 
United  States,  p.  123. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  143 

from   the   church.150     This   was   the   last   division   in   the 
church  until  the  guns  fired  on  Fort  Sumpter. 

The  attitude  of  the  Tennessee  Presbyterians  on  slavery 
was  well  expressed  by  the  Synod  of  Tennessee  in  1817,  in 
an  address  to  the  American  Colonization  Society.  This 
memorial,  after  congratulating  the  society  upon  its  pur- 
pose, said: 

We  wish  you,  therefore,  to  know,  that  within 
our  bounds  the  public  sentiment  appears  clearly 
and  decidedly  in  your  favor  .  .  .  We  ardently  wish 
that  your  exertions  and  the  best  influence  of  all 
philanthropists  may  be  united,  to  meliorate  the 
condition  of  human  society,  and  especially  of  its 
most  degraded  classes,  till  liberty,  religion,  and 
happiness  shall  be  the  enjoyment  o  f  the  whole 
family  of  man.151 

There  were  several  very  prominent  anti-slavery  Presby- 
terian leaders  in  Tennessee,  among  both  the  laymen  and  the 
clergymen.  Judge  S.  J.  W.  Lucky  was  a  prominent  example 
of  a  layman  who  was  an  active  anti-slavery  worker.  Hon. 
John  Blair,  who  was  a  ruling  elder  and  representative  of 
his  district  in  Congress  for  twelve  years,  became  convinced 
that  slavery  was  wrong,  and  offered  to  give  a  bill  of  sale  of 
his  slaves  to  Dr.  David  Nelson.  He  was  unable  to  see  any 
practical  way  out  of  slavery.152 

Among  the  ministers  were  three  who  did  valuable  service 
in  the  cause  of  freedom.  Rev.  John  Rankin's  work  as  an 
anti-slavery  leader  has  been  noticed  in  another  connection. 
He  was  one  of  the  pioneers  in  the  cause.  Rev.  Dr.  David 
Nelson,  a  native  of  Washington  County,  and  brother-in-law 
of  Chief  Justice  James  W.  Frederick,  was  one  of  the  most 
determined  anti-slavery  men  in  the  country.153  He  had  to 

isoThirteenth  Annual  Report  of  American  and  Foreign  Anti- 
slavery  Society,  1827,  pp.  67-8. 

151Tenth  Annual  Report  of  American  Colonization  Society,  1827, 
pp.  67-8. 

152Quarterly  Review  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  April,  1892,  119- 
120. 

153Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  Ixiii,  132. 


144  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

be  saved  from  a  mob  for  proposing  to  his  congregation  to 
take  a  subscription  with  which  to  buy  and  colonize  slaves. 
He  was  eloquent  in  promoting  colonization.154  Rev.  E.  T. 
Brantley,  a  West  Tennessee  Presbyterian  minister,  said  of 
him:  "He  cordially  disapproved  of  slavery.  He  found  no 
justification  of  it  anywhere.  All  look  forward  to  the  ex- 
tinction of  slavery  ...  If  the  North  could  be  aware  of  the 
progress  of  anti-slavery  sentiment  at  the  South,  particularly 
among  Christians,  they  would  think  the  day  of  emancipa- 
tion had  already  dawned."155  Rev.  Dr.  Ross,  of  Tennessee, 
was  one  of  the  most  able  leaders  in  Presbyterianism  in  the 
South.  He  was  the  spokesman  of  Southern  Presbyterian- 
ism  in  the  general  assembly,  which  met  at  Buffalo  in  May, 
1853.  It  was  in  this  assembly  that  the  committee  on  slav- 
ery recommended  that  a  committee  consisting  of  one  mem- 
ber from  each  of  the  synods  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Mis- 
souri, and  Virginia,  be  appointed  to  investigate  the  slave- 
holding  members  of  the  church  on  the  following  points,  and 
report  to  the  next  general  assembly : 

1.  The  number  of  slaveholders  in  connection 
with  the  churches,  and  the  number  of  slaves  held 
by  them. 

2.  The  extent  to  which  slaves  are  held,  from  an 
unavoidable  necessity  imposed  by  the  laws  of  the 
States,  the  obligation  of  guardianship,  and  the  de- 
mands of  humanity. 

3.  Whether  the  Southern  churches  regard  the 
sacredness  of  the  marriage  relation  as  it  exists 
among  the  slaves ;  whether  baptism  is  duly  admin- 
istered to  the  children  of  the  slaves  professing 
Christianity;  and,  in  general,  to  what  extent,  and 
in  what  manner,  provision  is  made  for  the  religious 
well-being  of  the  enslaved.156 

Dr.  Ross  warmly  opposed  this  action,  asserting  emphat- 
ically that  the  South  never  submitted  to  a  scrutiny.     He  pro- 


"4Quarterly  Review  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  April,  1892,  120. 
issThirteenth  Annual  Report  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Anti- 
slavery  Society,  1853,  p.  80. 
156Ibid.,  p.  71. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  145 

:; 

posed  a  substitute  motion  to  the  effect  that  "a  commitee 
from  each  of  the  Northern  synods  ...  be  appointed  to  report 
to  the  next  general  assembly  on  the  following  points : 

1.  The  number  of  Northern  church  members 
who  traffic  with  slaveholders,  and  are  seeking  to 
make  money  by  selling  them  negro  clothing,  hand- 
cuffs, and  cowhides. 

2.  How  many  Northern  church  members  are 
concerned,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  building  and 
fitting  out  ships  for  the  African  slave  trade,  and 
the  slave-trade  between  the  States? 

3.  How  many  Northern  church  members  have 
sent  orders  to  New  Orleans  and  other  Southern 
cities,  to  have  slaves  sold,  to  pay  debts  coming  to 
them  from  the  South?     (See  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin.) 

4.  How  many  Northern  church  members  buy 
the   cotton,   sugar,   rice,   tobacco,   oranges,    pine- 
apple, figs,  ginger,  cocoa,  melons,  and  a  thousand 
other  things,  raised  by  slave  labor? 

5.  How  many  Northern  church  members  have 
intermarried  with  slaveholders,  and  have  become 
slaveholders  themselves,  or  enjoy  the  wealth  made 
by  the  blood  of  the  slaves,  especially  if  there  be  any 
Northern  ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  such  a  pre- 
dicament? 

6.  How  many  Northern  church  members  are 
descendants  of  the  men  who  kidnapped  negroes 
in  Africa,  and  brought  them  to  Virginia  and  New 
England,  in  former  years? 

7.  What  is  the  aggregate  and  individual  wealth 
of  church  members  thus  decended,  and  what  action 
is  best  to  compel  them  to   disgorge  this  blood- 
stained wealth,  or  to  make  them  give  dollar  for 
dollar  in  equalizing  the  loss  of  the  South  by  eman- 
cipation ? 

8.  How  many  Northern  church  members,  min- 
isters especially,  have  advocated  murder  in  resist- 
ance to  the  laws  of  the  land. 

9.  How  many  Northern  church  members  own 
stock  in  underground  railroads,  running  off  fugi- 
tive slaves,  and   Sabbath-breaking  railroads  and 
canals  ? 

10.  That  a  special  committee  be  sent  up  Red 
River,  to  ascertain  whether  Legree,  who  whipped 
Uncle  Tom  to  death  (and  a  Northern  gentleman). 


146  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

be  not  still  in  connection  with   some  Northern 
church,  in  good  and  regular  standing. 

11.  How  many  Northern  church  members  attend 
meetings  of  Spiritual  Roppers,  are  Bloomers,  or 
Woman's  Rights  Conventionalists? 

12.  How  many  are  cruel  husbands? 

13.  How  many  are  henpecked  husbands?157 

Dr.  Ross  said :  "He  did  not  desire  discussion  on  this  sub- 
ject, but  still  he  had  no  opposition  to  make  if  others  wished 
to  discuss  it.  As  a  citizen  of  the  state  of  Tennessee,  a  state 
which  partakes  of  the  fire  of  the  South  and  the  prudence  of 
the  North,  he  was  perfectly  calm  on  the  subject.158  He 
said  again,  "If  anyone  would  present  him  with  a  handsome 
copy  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  he  would  keep  it  on  his  center- 
table,  and  show  it  to  all  his  visitors."159 

The  Presbyterians  had  a  large  number  of  slaves  as  mem- 
bers, but  in  their  reports  there  is  no  distinction  made  be- 
tween whites  and  blacks.  "In  many  places,"  says  Rev. 
James  H.  McNeilly,  "separate  houses  of  worship  were  pro- 
vided for  them,  and  in  a  great  many  churches  large  galleries 
with  comfortable  seats  were  assigned  to  them.  Often  the 
planters  on  large  plantations  built  neat  and  commodious 
chapels  for  them,  and  in  these  chapels  the  planter  and  his 
family  frequently  worshipped  with  their  servants.  In  the 
cities  and  towns  the  white  people  gave  up  their  churches 
to  the  negroes  for  afternoon  service."  Dr.  McNeilly  says : 
"I  remember  that  in  1855  the  Presbyterian  General  Assem- 
bly met  in  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  at  Nashville,  Tenn. 
Dr.  Edgar,  the  pastor,  gave  some  of  the  Northern  commis- 
sioners opportunity  to  see  and  preach  to  some  of  the  negro 
congregations.  These  ministers  were  surprised  to  see  the 
the  fine  dressing,  the  happy  faces,  the  apparent  devotion 
of  the  people,  and  were  much  gratified  to  find  the  evidence 
of  the  interest  of  the  churches  in  the  spiritual  welfare  of 
the  slaves."100 

i5?Thirteenth  Annual  Report  of  American  and  Foreign  Anti-slavery 
Society,  1853,  pp.  73-4. 
158Ibid.,  pp.  67-8. 
^Ibid.,  p.  82. 
160McNeilly,  James  H.,  Religion  and  Slavery,  p.  42. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  147 

"In  the  spring  of  I860,"  says  Dr.  McNeilly,  "I  was  li- 
censed to  preach  by  the  Presbytery  of  Nashville  and  spent 
nearly  six  months  in  preaching  in  two  counties  of  Middle 
Tennessee.  The  members  of  my  congregation  owned  a  con- 
siderable number  of  slaves,  to  whom  I  preached  regularly 
every  Sabbath  afternoon,  although  most  of  them  were  mem- 
bers of  Methodist  and  Baptist  churches."160 

The  Presbyterians  were  profoundly  interested  in  the  wel- 
fare of  the  slaves.  In  the  Synods  of  Kentucky,  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  West  Tennessee,  "it  is," 
says  Harrison,  "the  practice  of  a  number  of  ministers  to 
preach  to  the  negroes  separately  once  on  the  Sabbath  or  dur- 
ing the  week."101  There  were  Sabbath  Schools  also,  and, 
with  few  exceptions,  a  number  of  negroes  formed  a  portion 
of  every  Sabbath  congregation. 

The  Presbyterians  did  not  let  the  negroes  preach  as  much 
as  the  Baptists  and  Methodists  did.  These  denominations 
had  real  preachers  with  their  congregations,  but  the  Pres- 
byterian conception  of  the  character  of  a  preacher  practi- 
cally excluded  the  negro.  They  had,  however,  negro  exhort- 
ers.  In  fact,  the  negroes  did  not  want  a  preacher  they  could 
understand.  Even  a  white  preacher,  if  he  tried  to  simplify 
his  language  to  suit  them,  would  become  unpopular  with 
them.  They  liked  big  words,  and  would  always  praise  the 
Lord  when  a  high-sounding  word  was  used.  Rev.  McNeilly 
tells  of  a  young  theologian  who  began  his  sermon  to  the 
negroes  thus,  "Primarily  we  must  postulate  the  existence 
of  a  duty."  After  a  short  pause,  some  old  colored  patriarch 
fervently  responded,  "Yaas,  Lord,  dat's  so.  Bless  de  Lord."162 

The  Tennessee  Presbyterians  voted  against  the  Spring 
Resolutions  in  the  general  assembly  at  Philadelphia,  and 
participated  in  the  convention  at  Atlanta  in  August,  1861, 
which  adopted  among  other  resolutions,  the  following: 
"Our  connection  with  the  non-slaveholding  states,  it  cannot 
be  denied,  was  a  great  hindrance  to  the  systematic  perform- 
ance of  the  work  of  evangelization  of  the  slave  population. 


162Harrison,  p.  91. 
p.  92. 


148  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

Is  is  true  that  the  northern  portion  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  professed  to  be  conservative,  but  their  opposition  to 
our  social  economy  was  constantly  increasing."163  The 
synods  of  Memphis  and  Nashville,  together  with  various 
Presbyteries,  participated  in  the  convention  at  Augusta, 
Georgia,  in  December,  1861,  which  organized  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Church.  Tennessee  has  remained  a  strong 
center  of  Southern  Presbyterianism  to  the  present. 

VI.    THE  EPISCOPALIANS. 

The  Episcopal  Church  from  the  beginning  of  its  work  in 
America  stressed  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  the 
slaves.  The  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in 
Foreign  Parts  was  incorporated  under  William  III,  in  1701, 
and  on  investigation  it  was  decided  that  the  work  in  Amer- 
ica "consisted  of  three  great  homilies :  the  care  and  instruc- 
tion of  our  people  settled  in  the  colonies,  the  conversion  of 
the  Indian  savages,  and  the  conversion  of  the  negroes."164 
Rev.  Samuel  Thomas,  the  first  missionary,  who  was  sent  to 
North  Carolina  in  1702,  reported  that  "he  had  taken  much 
pains  also  in  instructing  the  negroes  and  learned  twenty 
of  them  to  read."164  The  Episcopal  Church,  like  the  Pres- 
byterian, did  not  report  as  a  rule  separate  statistics  for 
colored  members  of  the  church.  In  1817  there  were  828 
colored  members  in  the  Episcopal  churches  at  Charleston.165 
In  1822  there  were  200  colored  children  in  their  Sunday 
Schools.166 

The  Episcopal  Church  had  a  sort  of  philosophical  atti- 
tude toward  the  negroes.  It  was  never  the  church  of  feel- 
ing, like  the  Methodists  and  Baptists.  In  1823  Rev.  Dr. 
Dalcho  of  the  Episcopal  Church  at  Charleston  issued  a 
pamphlet  entitled,  "Practical  Considerations,  Founded  on 
the  Scriptures,  Relative  to  the  Slave  Population  of  South 
Carolina."  The  church  was  vitally  interested  in  the  wel- 
fare of  the  slave  throughout  the  South. 

163Goodspeed,  p.  683. 
164Harrison,  p.  40. 
165Ibid.,  67. 
73. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  149 

The  Episcopal  Church  did  not  establish  itself  in  Tennes- 
see until  anti-slavery  feeling  was  on  the  wane.  The  first 
Episcopal  Church  in  Tennessee  was  established  at  Franklin, 
Williamson  County,  August  25,  1827,  by  Rev.  James  H. 
Otey.167  He  began  to  preach  occasionally  at  Columbia  and 
Nashville,  and  by  1830  there  were  two  additional  clergy. 
In  this  same  year,  on  July  1,  the  first  convention  of  the 
church  was  held  at  Nashville,  and  in  this  year  the  Diocese 
of  Tennessee  was  formed.  There  were  about  fifty  commu- 
nicants at  this  time  in  Tennessee.168 

The  church  grew  very  slowly.  The  state  was  still  in  a 
frontier  condition.  The  inhabitants  were  democratic,  and 
were  already  members  for  the  most  part  of  the  Methodist 
and  Baptist  churches.  What  aristocracy  there  was  belonged 
to  the  Presbyterian  Church.  There  was  no  American  bishop 
in  the  Episcopal  Church  to  consecrate  candidates  for  the 
ministry.  They  were  forced  to  go  to  England  for  the  lay- 
ing-on  of  hands.  Again,  the  War  of  1812  had  further  in- 
tensified the  prejudice  against  the  English  church. 

Rev.  Otey  was  a  persistent  worker,  and  after  his  conse- 
cration in  1834  he  began  to  lay  the  foundation  for  educa- 
tional and  religious  expansion  of  this  church.  Mercer  Hall, 
a  school  for  boys,  was  opened  in  his  home  in  1836.170  Colum- 
bia Female  Institute  was  founded  in  the  same  year,  and 
preparations  were  begun  to  found  a  university  the  same 
year,  but  were  not  successful  until  1857,  when  the  Univer- 
sity of  the  South  was  established  in  the  Cumberland  Moun- 
tains about  ten  miles  from  Winchester  at  Sewanee,  Tenn. 
Bishop  Otey  became  its  first  president. 

By  1844  there  were  thirteen  resident  clergymen  in  the 
state  besides  Rev.  Otey.  The  number  of  communicants  had 
grown  from  117  in  1834  to  400.169  In  1860,  the  last  year 
of  the  Journal  of  the  Convention  for  the  South  until  after 
the  war,  there  were  27  members  of  the  clergy,  26  parishes, 
and  1500  communicants. 

167Goodspeed,  p.  694. 

168Ibid.,  p.  697. 
.,  p.  698. 


150  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

The  Episcopal  Church  in  Tennessee  was  practically  syn- 
onomous  with  Bishop  Otey,  who  directed  and  controlled  its 
policy.  He  owned  a  plantation  out  from  Memphis  and  a 
number  of  slaves.  He  was  a  typical  Southern,  Christian 
slaveholder.  He  believed  that  patriarchal  slavery  was  a 
great  institution  for  the  negro.  He  felt  that  the  North 
misunderstood  the  institution,  and  was  in  its  agitation  do- 
ing irreparable  damage  to  the  nation  and  the  South.  Writ- 
ing to  the  Northern  clergymen,  May  17,  1861,  he  said : 

As  to  your  coming  South,  let  me  just  here  state, 
for  all,  that  you  wholly  misapprehend  the  spirit  of 
our  people.  We  ask  not  one  thing  of  the  North 
which  has  not  been  secured  to  us  by  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws  since  they  were  established  and  en- 
acted, and  which  has  been  granted  to  us  until  with- 
in a  few  years  past.  We  demand  no  sacrifice  nor 
the  surrender  of  Northern  rights  and  privileges. 
The  party  that  elected  Mr.  Lincoln  proclaimed  un- 
compromising hostility  to  the  institution  of  slav- 
ery— an  institution  which  existed  here,  and  has 
done  so  from  its  beginning,  in  its  patriarchial  char- 
acter. We  feel  ourselves  under  the  most  solemn 
obligations  to  take  care  of,  and  to  provide  for, 
these  people  who  cannot  provide  for  themselves. 
Nearly  every  free-soil  state  has  prohibited  them 
from  settling  in  their  territory.  Where  are  they 
to  go? 

Here  the  bishop  is  seen  as  a  defender  of  Southern  institu- 
tions and  ideals,  yet  he  was  loyal  to  the  Union  as  an  old 
Whig  just  as  long  as  he  could  be.  He  wrote  letters  to  mem- 
bers of  the  cabinet,  begging  caution  and  consideration.  But 
when  he  felt  that  the  South  had  been  unnecessarily  attacked, 
he  fully  identified  himself  and  the  Tennessee  Episcopalians 
with  the  cause  of  the  South.  Writing  to  his  daughter,  May 
24,  1861,  he  said,  "And  now,  my  dear  child,  you  ask  me  if  I 
think  the  cause  of  the  South  just,  and  that  God  will  favor 
us  and  defends  us.  I  answer,  in  very  deed,  I  do."170 

When  his  slaves  were  set  free  in  1862,  he  called  them  into 
his  parlor  and  gave  them  a  father's  advice.  He  said :  "I  do 

17°Memoirs  of  Rt.  James  H.  Otey,  p.  94. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  151 

not  regret  the  departure  of  my  servants,  except  Lavinia  and 
Nora  (children  of  eight  and  seven  years  of  age)  ;  I  pity 
them — I  have  endeavored  to  treat  them  always  humanely. 
They  had  as  comfortable  rooms,  and  as  many  necessary  com- 
forts as  myself.  If  they  can  do  better  by  leaving  me,  they 
are  free  to  do  so."171 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  general  spirit  of  frontier 
life  was  against  slavery.  It  was  always  opposed  to  conven- 
tion and  privilege.  In  the  early  period  of  Tennessee  pol- 
itics when  the  anti-slavery  feeling  was  strongest,  frontier 
conditions  prevailed.  These  pioneers,  in  the  period  fron? 
1790  to  1834,  were  fighting  for  the  suffrage,  representation, 
and  the  right  to  hold  office.  These  privileges  were  enjoyed 
only  by  property  holders.  Under  such  conditions,  opposi- 
tion to  slaveholders,  who  primarily  stood  for  privilege,  was 
inevitable.  The  anti-slavery  attitude  of  the  churches  was 
partly  a  result  of  these  conditions  as  well  as  of  religious 
sentiment.  These  people  could  express  themselves  through 
churches  and  independent  societies  more  freely  than  through 
politics,  which  was  generally  dominated  by  slaveholders. 

In  estimating  the  work  of  the  churches  as  a  whole,  one 
is  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  value  of  their  services  to 
the  negro.  Practically  all  of  the  outstanding  anti-slavery 
leaders  were  prominent  churchmen.  The  anti-slavery  lit- 
erature of  the  early  period  was  published  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  church.  The  churches  constantly  advocated 
manumission  to  the  masters,  and  sought  easier  terms  from 
the  legislature  for  emancipation.  They  preached  against 
the  slave  traffic  and  the  inhuman  practice  of  separating 
families.  Their  influence  also  softened  the  character  of  the 
slave  code  in  both  its  make-up  and  administration.  In  the 
later  forties  and  fifties  when  the  negroes  came  into  the 
churches  in  increased  numbers,  their  field  of  service  was 
increased.  There  was  almost  as  large  a  percentage  of  slaves 
belonging  to  the  churches  in  1860  as  there  is  of  negroes  in 
the  church  today.172 

^Memoirs  of  Rt.  James  H.  Otey,  p.  93. 
172Harrison,  304. 


152  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

The  church  was  given  a  freer  hand  with  the  slaves,  mis- 
sions were  established,  church  houses  were  built,  and  many 
of  the  slaves  learned  to  read  under  the  guidance  of  the 
church.  Their  characters  were  improved.  The  influence 
of  the  churches  was  always  directed  toward  better  living 
conditions,  better  food  and  clothing,  and  better  treatment 
generally.  Their  influences  were  felt  directly  by  the  ne- 
groes as  well  as  indirectly  through  Christian  masters. 

The  individual  churches  in  Tennessee  differed  consider- 
ably in  their  attitude  toward  slavery  in  the  early  period.  In 
the  order  of  their  degree  of  hostility  to  slavery,  the  Friends 
should  have  first  place,  the  Methodists  second,  Cumberland 
Presbyterians  third,  Baptists  fourth,  Presbyterians  fifth, 
and  Episcopalians  sixth.  From  point  of  service,  the  Metho- 
dists should  rank  first,  and  the  Baptists  second.  These 
two  churches  represented  the  masses  of  the  slaveholders  and 
contained  the  majority  of  the  slaves  that  belonged  to  the 
church.  It  is  difficult  to  estimate  the  work  of  the  Baptists 
because  there  are  no  records  of  their  local  associations  or 
their  individual  congregations.  Through  biographies  and 
actions  of  Tennessee  delegations  to  the  Southern  Convention 
after  1845,  one  can  find  convincing  evidence  that  Tennessee 
Baptists  did  a  valuable  work  for  the  negro.  The  sources 
for  the  study  of  the  Methodists  are  much  more  abundant. 
It  appears,  therefore,  that  their  work  assumed  larger  pro- 
portions than  that  of  any  other  denomination.  "High  and 
low  alike,"  says  Harrison,  "entered  into  this  noble  work. 
There  was  no  phase  of  it  too  humble,  no  duty  connected 
with  it  too  unpleasant  to  deter  the  most  earnest  and  pains- 
taking effort.  Bishop  McTyeire,  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  declared  that  during  a  long  ministerial 
life  there  was  nothing  connected  with  it  in  which  he  took 
more  pride  and  satisfaction  than  the  remembrance  of  the 
more  than  three  hundred  services  he  had  preached  to  negro 
congregations."173 


173Harrison,  304. 


CHAPTER  VI 

i  _ 
LEGAL  STATUS  OF  THE  FREE  NEGRO 

I.    THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  A  POLICY. 

A.  The  Policy  of  North  Carolina.    The  original  policy  of 
North  Carolina  towards  manumission  was  that  the  owner 
of  slaves  could  free  them  by  deed,  will,  or  contract.     He  was 
at  liberty  to  renounce  his  title  to  them  absolutely  or  in  a 
modified  manner,  if  he  thought  proper.1     In  1777,  the  state 
asserted  its  control  over  emancipation  by  conferring  on  the 
county  courts  the  power  to  grant  petitions  for  freedom  on 
a  basis  of  meritorious  services.2  The  reasons  for  this  change 
were  that  it  was  thought  necessary  to  protect  the  public 
against  being  charged  for  the  maintenance  of  manumitted 
slaves,  and  that  free  negroes  were  a  menace  to  the  body 
politic. 

B.  The  Policy  of  Tennessee  to  1831.    This  policy  worked 
a  hardship  in  practice  because  it  limited  the  courts  to  cases 
of  meritorious  services.     It  frequently  separated  families 
because  all  members  were  seldom  entitled  to  freedom  at  the 
same  time.   In  1801,  Tennessee  removed  the  limited  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  courts  by  giving  them  practically  plenary  power 
over  manumission.3     The  only  restriction  on  the  courts  was 
that  they  sustain  the  policy  of  the  state.     Of  course,  the 
legislature  could  by  special  act  grant  freedom  in  any  par- 
ticular case.     This  was  the  policy  of  Tennessee  to  1831. 

C.  Changes  in  the  Policy.     There  were  several  factors 

(that  produced  the  change  of  1831.  The  number  of  free 
negroes  had  increased  from  361  in  1801  to  4,555  in  1831.4 
Since  free  negroes  voted  at  this  time,  this  meant  that  they 
were  a  factor  in  politics.  Manumission  societies  had  been 
active  during  this  period,  and  had  created  opposition  to  free 
negroes.  Abolition  literature  had  flourished.  The  cotton 

iWheeler,  p.  279. 

2Acts  of  North  Carolina,  1777,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  2. 

3Acts  of  1801,  Ch.  27,  Sec.  1. 


154  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

industry  had  developed  by  virtue  of  the  settlement  of  West 
Tennessee,  a  portion  of  the  Black  Belt.  Fear  of  servile  in- 
surrections had  increased.  There  had  been  Gabriel's  insur- 
rection in  Virginia  in  1800 ;  the  Vessey  insurrection  in  South 
Carolina  in  1822;  the  Nat  Turner  insurrection  in  Virginia 
in  1831 ;  and  an  attempt  at  insurrection  in  Tennessee  at  the 
same  time.5  The  liberal  policy  of  the  state  prior  to  1831 
had  caused  an  influx  of  free  negroes  from  other  states. 
The  governor,  in  a  message  to  the  legislature  in  1815,  stated 
that  fifty  free  negroes  had  come  into  the  state  that  year  from 
Virginia  and  as  many  more  were  expected  the  next  year.6 

In  1831,  the  legislature  forbade  "any  free  person  of  color 
(whether  he  be  born  free,  or  emancipated,  agreeably  to  the 
laws  in  force  and  use,  either  now,  or  at  any  other  time,  in 
any  state  within  the  United  States  or  elsewhere),  to  re- 
move himself  to  this  state  and  to  reside  therein,  and  remain 
therein  twenty  days."7 

If  a  free  negro  was  convicted  of  entering  the  state  in  vio- 
lation of  this  act,  he  was  subject  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than 
ten  nor  more  than  fifty  dollars  and  an  imprisonment  of  one 
or  two  years,  at  the  discretion  of  the  judge.  If  he  did  not 
remove  from  the  state  within  thirty  days  after  the  expira- 
tion of  the  term  of  imprisonment,  he  was  again  subject  to 
indictment  as  before,  and  upon  conviction  was  imprisoned 
for  double  the  maximum  time  for  first  offense.  No  pe- 
cuniary fine  was  attached  in  the  second  instance. 

There  were  only  two  ways  by  which  a  free  negro  could 
legally  enter  the  state  after  1831.  This,  of  course,  is  bar- 
ring special  act  of  the  legislature.  If  a  free  negro  and  a 
slave  of  another  state  were  married,  and  the  owner  of  the 
slave  decided  to  move  to  Tennessee,  he  was  permitted  to 
bring  the  free  negro  along  with  the  slave,  by  giving  a  bond 
of  $500  to  the  county  in  which  he  chose  to  reside,  guarantee- 
ing that  the  free  negro  would  keep  the  peace  and  would  not 

4U.  S.  Census,  1870,  I,  Population,  62. 

5The  Genius,  II,  136;  The  Western  Freeman,  Shelbyville,  Tennes- 
see, Sept.  6,  1831. 

6Hale  and  Merrit,  II,  296. 
*  Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  102,  Sec.  1. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  155 

become  a  charge  to  the  county.8  If  a  free  negro  of  another 
state  married  a  slave  of  Tennessee  with  the  master's  con- 
sent, he  was  permitted  to  come  into  the  state  if  the  master 
of  the  slave  would  make  bond  to  the  county  for  his  good 
conduct.9  The  state,  however,  reserved  the  right  to  order 
such  free  negroes  to  remove,  if  their  conduct  proved  unsatis- 
factory. If  they  refused  to  do  so,  they  were  subject  to  the 
punishment  provided  by  the  Act  of  1831.10 

Emancipation  was  prohibited  except  on  the  express  con- 
dition that  such  slave  or  slaves  shall  be  immediately  removed 
from  the  state.11  The  owner  was  required  to  give  bond 
with  good  security  in  value  equal  to  that  of  the  emancipated 
slave,  guaranteeing  to  send  the  negro  out  of  the  state  and  to 
provide  sufficient  funds  to  pay  his  transportation  charges 
to  Africa  and  support  him  for  six  months.  Only  age  and 
disease  exempted  slaves  from  the  operation  of  this  act.12 

Chief  Justice  Nicholson  in  discussing  this  change  of  pol- 
icy said : 

The  policy  of  the  state  on  the  subject  of  emanci- 
pation was  marked  by  great  liberality  until  the 
year  1831,  when  the  public  mind  began  first  to  be 
agitated  by  discussions  in  the  Northern  states  of 
the  question  of  abolishing  slavery  ...  A  more  rigid 
policy  commenced  in  1831,  when  it  was  enacted, 
that  no  slaves  should  be  emancipated  except  upon 
the  condition  of  removal  from  the  State.  This 
policy  was  based  upon  the  belief  that  the  peace 
of  the  State  would  be  endangered  by  an  increase 
of  the  number  of  free  colored  persons.13 

Judge  Catron  said :  "The  policy  of  the  act  of  1831  is  not 
to  permit  a  free  negro  to  come  into  the  state  from  abroad ; 
and  secondly  not  to  permit  a  slave,  freed  by  our  laws,  to  be 
manumitted  upon  any  other  condition  than  that  of  being 

«M.  &  C.,  Sec.  2711. 

"Ibid.,  Sec.  2712. 

ioibid.,  Sec.  2703. 

"Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  102,  Sec.  2. 

«M.  &  C.,  Sees.  2704-6. 

"Jameson  v.  McCoy,  5  Humphrey,  118   (1871). 


156  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

forthwith  transported  from  the  state,  to  which,  by  the  first 
section,  he  dare  not  return/'14 

He  justified  the  restrictions  on  emancipation  by  saying 
it  meant  "adopting  into  the  body  politic  a  new  member;  a 
vastly  important  measure  in  every  community,  and  espe- 
cially in  ours,  where  the  majority  of  free  men  over  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  govern  the  balance  of  the  people  together 
with  themselves;  where  the  free  negro's  vote  at  the  polls 
is  as  of  high  value  as  that  of  any  man  .  .  .  The  highest  act 
of  sovereignty  a  government  can  perform  is  to  adopt  a  new 
member,  with  all  the  privileges  and  duties  of  citizenship. 
To  permit  an  individual  to  do  this  at  pleasure  would  be 
wholly  inadmissible."14 

Judge  Catron  said  the  reasons  for  the  policy  of  exclusion 
were  fear  of  rebellion  among  the  slaves  incited  by  free  ne- 
groes, the  immoral  influence  of  free  negroes  among  slaves, 
the  injustice  of  forcing  free  negroes  upon  either  the  slave 
or  free  states,  and,  finally,  justice  to  the  negro.  He  said : 

All  the  slaveholding  states,  it  is  believed,  as  well 
as  many  non-slaveholding,  like  ourselves,  have 
adopted  the  policy  of  exclusion.  The  consequence 
is  the  free  negro  cannot  find  a  home  that  promises 
even  safety  in  the  United  States  and  assuredly 
none  that  promises  comfort.15 

Judge  Nelson,  speaking  of  this  change  in  policy,  said: 

Before  the  unjust,  unwarrantable,  unconstitu- 
tional, and  impertinent  interference  of  enthusiasts 
and  intermeddlers  in  other  states  with  this  domes- 
tic relation,  rendered  it  necessary  for  the  State  to 
guard  against  the  effect  of  their  incendiary  pub- 
lications, and  to  tighten  the  bonds  of  slavery  by 
defensive  legislation,  against  persistent  and  un- 
tiring efforts  to  produce  insurrection,  the  uniform 
course  of  decision  in  the  State  was  shaped  with  a 
view  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  slave,  and 


14Fisher's  Negroes  v,  Dabbs,  6  Yerger,  129  (1834). 
130. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  157 

to  protect  him  against  the  tyranny  and  cruelty  of 
the  master  and  other  persons.16 

The  act  of  1831  did  not  accomplish  its  intended  purpose. 
It  was  passed  largely  in  the  interest  of  colonization.  It 
also  failed  to  consider  those  slaves  who  had  made  contracts 
for  their  freedom  prior  to  its  passage,  but  who  had  not 
obtained  the  consent  of  the  state,  and  those  who  had  been 
freed  by  will,  but  whose  masters  were  not  yet  deceased. 
The  disabilities  were  removed  from  these  two  classes  of 
slaves  by  the  act  of  1833,  which  excepted  them  from  the 
operation  of  the  act  of  1831.17  This  policy  was  further 
modified  in  1842,  when  the  state  again  placed  the  problem 
of  emancpaton  entrely  n  the  hands  of  the  county  courts.18 
Judge  McKinney  held  that  this  act  empowered  the  county 
court  "to  adjudge  whether  or  not  it  would  be  consistent 
with  the  interest  and  policy  of  the  state  to  permit  any  man- 
umitted slave  or  free  persons  of  color  to  reside  in  this  state/' 
and  that  their  decisions  were  "not  subject  to  the  supervi- 
son  and  control  of  the  superior  judicial  tribunals."19  He 
maintained  that  the  courts  were  acting  as  administrative 
agents  of  the  state  and  that  the  matter  was  wholly  political 
and  not  judicial.20 

This  meant  that  the  policy  of  exclusion  was  considerably 
modified.  Any  slave  on  manumission  had  the  privilege  of 
petitioning  the  county  court  to  be  permitted  to  remain  in 
the  state.  The  conditions  that  had  to  be  met  by  the  slaves 
were :  "First,  proof  of  good  character ;  second,  that  it  would 
violate  the  feelings  of  humanity  to  remove  the  applicant; 
third,  a  bond  with  satisfactory  security  for  good  behavior."21 

This  liberal  change  in  the  policy  adopted  in  1831  was 
soon  eliminated.  In  1849,  the  state  reverted  to  the  policy 
of  exclusion.  The  discretionary  power  granted  to  the  county 
courts  in  1842  was  taken  away  and  emancipation  was  pro- 

16Andrews  v.  Page,  3  Heiskell,  660  (1870). 

"Acts  of  1833,  Ch.  81,  Sees.  1-2. 

i»Acts  of  1842,  Ch.  191,  Sec.  1. 

19The  Case  of  F.  Gray,  9  Humphrey,  515   (1848). 

2oibid.,  516. 

2ilbid.,  515. 


158  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

hibited  "except  upon  the  terms  and  conditions  imposed  by 
the  act  of  1831,  Ch.  102."22  Judge  Caruthers,  explaining 
this  shifting  policy  of  the  legislature,  said : 

It  is  a  vexed  and  perplexing  question,  upon  which 
public  opinion,  acting  upon  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  has  been  subject  to  much  vibration  be- 
tween sympathy  and  humanity  for  the  slave  and 
the  safety  and  well-being  of  society.  Hence,  the 
frequent  changes  in  our  legislation  on  the  subject.-3 

Masters  continued  to  emancipate  their  slaves  regardless 
of  this  prohibition.  A  class  of  negroes  grew  up  that  were 
neither  slave  nor  free.  They  were  free  from  their  masters, 
but  the  state  had  not  consented  to  their  emancipation  and 
continued  residence  within  its  borders.  In  1852,  the  county 
courts  were  instructed  to  appoint  trustees  for  these  negroes. 
These  trustees  hired  them  out,  and  used  their  wages  to  sup- 
port the  negroes.-4  The  negroes  preferred  to  remain  in  a 
state  of  semi-slavery  than  to  go  to  Africa.  This  act  was 
really  an  admission  that  the  policy  of  exclusion  was  failing 
and  it  also  made  provision  for  continued  evasion. 

The  weaknesses  of  the  measure  were  remedied  in  1854 
and  a  more  rigid  policy  of  exclusion  was  adopted.  If  the 
masters  did  not  provide  the  means  to  send  the  manumitted 
slaves  to  Africa,  such  slaves  were  hired  out  by  the  clerks 
of  the  county  courts  until  sufficient  funds  were  raised  and 
turned  into  the  state  treasury.  The  governor  was  then  re- 
quired* to  provide  for  their  transportation  to  Africa.20  This 
act  abolished  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  county  courts 
over  emancipation,  and  permitted  the  slave  to  file  his  peti- 
tion for  freedom  in  any  court.  He  could  appeal  his  case 
to  a  higher  court  if  he  desired. 

This  act  established  the  policy  pursued  by  the  state  until 
the  Civil  War.  Judge  Caruthers,  speaking  of  the  difficulty 
of  establishing  a  satisfactory  policy,  said : 


22Acts  of  1849,  Ch.  107,  Sec.  1. 

23Bridge  Water  v.  Pride,  1  Sneed,  197   (1863). 

2*Acts  of  1852,  Ch.  300,  Sec.  3. 

25Acts  of  1854,  Ch.  50,  Sec.  1. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  159 

The  struggle  has  been  to  devise  some  plan  which 
would  be  just  to  the  slave,  and  not  inconsistent 
with  the  interests  of  society — that  would  sustain 
his  right  to  liberty,  and  at  the  same  time  save  the 
community  from  the  evils  of  a  free  negro  popula- 
tion. 

This,  it  is  believed,  has  been  more  effectually  ac- 
complished by  the  late  act  than  at  any  time  before 
.  .  .  We  regard  this  as  the  most  wise  and  judicious 
plan  which  has  been  yet  devised;  and,  with  some 
amendments,  it  should  become  the  settled  policy  of 
the  state.26 

The  free  negro  continued  to  be  regarded  as  a  menace  to 
society.  In  1858,  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the  legislature 
to  banish  all  free  negroes  from  the  state,  but  the  better 
element  of  the  state  defeated  its  passage.  Judge  Catron, 
who  had  been  a  member  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Tennessee, 
and  who  was  now  a  member  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  speaking  of  this  measure,  said : 

This  bill  proposes  to  commit  an  outrage,  to  per- 
petrate an  oppression  and  cruelty,  and  it  is  idle  to 
mince  words  to  soften  the  fact.  This  people  who 
were  born  free  and  lived  as  free  persons,  will 
preach  rebellion  everywhere  that  they  may  be 
driven  to  by  this  unjust  law,  whether  it  be  amongst 
us  here  in  Tennessee  or  South  of  us  on  the  cotton 
and  sugar  plantations,  or  in  the  abolition  meetings 
of  the  free  states.  Nor  will  the  women  be  the  least 
effective  in  preaching  a  crusade,  when  begging 
money  in  the  North,  to  relieve  their  children,  left 
behind  in  this  State,  in  bondage.  We  are  told  it  is 
a  popular  measure.  Where  is  it  popular?  In  what 
nook  or  corner  of  the  State  are  the  principles  of 
humanity  so  deplorably  deficient  that  a  majority 
of  the  whole  inhabitants  would  commit  an  outrage 
not  committed  in  a  Christian  country  of  which  his- 
tory gives  any  account  .  .  .  Numbers  of  the  people 
sought  to  be  enslaved  or  driven  out  are  members  of 
our  various  churches,  and  in  full  communion.  That 
these  great  bodies  of  Christian  men  and  women 
will  quietly  stand  by  and  see  their  humble  co- 
workers  sold  on  the  block  to  the  negro-trader  is 

26Boon  v.  Lancaster,  1  Sneed,  583-4   (1854). 


160  University^  of  Texas  Bulletin 

not  to  be  expected;  nor  will  any  set  of  men  be 
supported,  morally,  or  politically,  who  are  the  au- 
thors of  such  a  law.27 

Since  colonization  had  failed,  and  efforts  at  banishment 
had  been  defeated,  the  only  remaining  alternative  that 
would  dispose  of  the  free  negro  was  re-enslavement.  In 
this  same  year,  provision  was  made  for  the  voluntary  re- 
enslavement  of  the  free  negro.  Any  free  negro  eighteen 
years  of  age  might  convey  himself  into  slavery  by  filing  a 
petition  to  this  effect  in  the  circuit  or  chancery  court,  signed 
by  himself  and  witnessed  by  two  persons.  The  petition 
named  the  master  selected.  After  due  publication,  the  pe- 
titioner and  the  master  appeared  in  court  and  asked  the 
granting  of  the  petition.  If  the  court  granted  the  petition, 
it  named  a  commission  of  three  men  to  value  the  slave.  The 
future  master  paid  one-tenth  of  this  value  to  the  county 
to  be  added  to  the  public  school  fund.  The  master  by  giving 
bond  to  the  court,  guaranteeing  that  the  negro  would  never 
become  a  charge  to  any  county  in  the  state,  received  title 
to  the  slave.28 

Voluntary  re-enslavement  did  not  accomplish  the  results 
desired  by  its  friends.  So  in  the  session  of  1859-60,  an  at- 
tempt was  made  to  force  free  negroes  into  slavery.  This 
measure  was  known  as  the  "Free  Negro  Bill."  It  provided 
that  all  free  negroes,  except  certain  minors,  who  did  not 
leave  the  state  by  May  1,  1861,  would  be  sold  into  slavery, 
the  supporters  of  this  bill  contending  that  the  free  negro 
had  no  rights  except  those  given  him  by  statutes,  which 
could  be  repealed.  The  opponents  of  the  bill  maintained 
that  the  vested  "rights  of  the  negro  could  not  be  taken  from 
him  because  it  would  be  an  impairment  of  contract  and  that 
the  legislature  could  not  touch  his  natural  rights."29  The 
bill  was  finally  defeated  after  a  prolonged  contest. 

27Twenty-seventh  Annual  Report  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  1861,  pp.  215-6. 

2»Acts  of  1858,  Ch.  45,  Sees.  1-4. 
29Hale  and  Merritt,  II,  300-301. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  161 

II.    REGISTRATION  OF  FREE  NEGROES. 

In  the  first  decade  of  the  history  of  the  state,  there  was 
no  notice  taken  of  the  movements  of  free  negroes.  They 
enjoyed  complete  freedom  in  their  going  and  coming  in  the 
community.  But  as  their  numbers  and  importance  increased 
the  state  began  to  want  to  know  about  their  movements. 
In  1806,  provision  was  made  for  the  registration  of  the  free 
negroes  of  the  state  by  the  county  court  clerks.  This  was 
a  sort  of  Dooms  Day  Book  of  free  negroes.  A  minute  de- 
scription, including  age,  name,  color,  and  record  of  any 
scars  on  hand,  face,  or  head,  was  made  of  them.  It  was 
also  noted  by  what  court  of  authority  they  were  emanci- 
pated, or  whether  they  were  born  free.  Two  copies  of 
each  registration  were  made,  certified  by  the  county  court 
clerk  and  attested  by  a  justice  of  the  peace.30  One  of  these 
was  filed  in  the  clerk's  office,  and  the  other  was  given  the 
free  negro. 

In  1807,  this  registration  certificate  was  made  the  pass- 
port for  the  free  negro  in  changing  counties.  If  he  chose 
permanently  to  reside  in  a  new  county,  he  was  required  to 
have  this  certificate  duplicated.  If  he  were  caught  without 
it,  he  was  arrested  and  put  in  jail  unless  he  made  bond.  If 
he  lost  it,  and  could  not  find  record  of  his  registration,  he 
was  required  to  produce  evidence  of  his  emancipation  or 
free  birth.  If  he  failed  in  this,  he  was  sold  as  a  runaway 
by  the  county  court.31  As  poorly  as  county  records  were 
kept,  as  difficult  as  it  was  for  the  negro  to  preserve  such  a 
record,  and  as  abundant  as  kidnappers  and  slave-stealers 
were,  the  free  negro  constantly  faced  the  possibility  of 
losing  his  freedom. 

By  act  of  1825,  free  negroes  coming  from  other  states 
were  required  to  bring  their  registration  papers  with  them 
and  have  them  recorded  in  some  court  of  record  in  the 
county  in  which  they  chose  to  reside.32 

The  registration  policy  was  given  further  significance  in 

3°Acts  of  1806,  Ch.  32^  Sec.  1. 
31Acts  of  1807,  Ch.  100,  Sec.  1. 
32Acts  of  1825,  Ch.  79,  Sec.  3. 


162  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

1842  by  an  act  which  required  all  registration  certificates  to 
be  renewed  every  three  years.33  At  the  time  of  each  re- 
newal, an  inquistion  was  made  into  the  negro's  character 
and  conduct.  If  the  county  court  saw  fit,  it  could  refuse  to 
renew  the  registration  certificate.  This  compelled  the  free 
negro  to  leave  the  state  within  twenty  days,  except  for  sick- 
ness or  unavoidable  hindrance.  If  he  refused  to  leave  the 
state,  within  twenty  days,  he  became  subject  to  the  penalties 
of  the  act  of  1831.3*  This  system  of  registration  was  not 
only  a  severe  restriction  upon  the  travel  of  the  free  negro, 
but  it  gave  chances  in  its  workings  for  considerable  collusion 
of  corrupt  officials  with  agents  of  the  slave  traders. 

III.  PROTECTION  OF  FREE  NEGROES. 

It  was  a  $500  fine  to  bring  into  the  state  a  free  negro 
convict  and  sell  him  as  a  slave.  Such  a  person  was  also 
subject  to  an  imprisonment,  for  not  exceeding  six  months.35 
Knowingly  to  steal  and  sell  any  free  negro  was  a  peniten- 
tiary offense  and  was  punishable  by  not  less  than  five  nor 
more  than  fifteen  years  in  the  state  prison.36 

The  children  of  free  negroes  were  not  permitted  to  re- 
main destitute  and  suffer.  The  county  courts  engaged  their 
services  to  suitable  persons  in  the  best  and  wisest  terms,  if 
their  parents  did  not  support  them.37 

IV.  THE  SUFFRAGE  FOR  FREE  NEGROES. 

A.  The  Suffrage  for  Free  Negroes  in  North  Carolina. 
The  historical  background  for  negro  suffrage  in  Tennessee 
is  found  in  the  laws  and  practices  of  colonial  North  Caro- 
lina. The  charter  that  established  the  Assembly  in  North 
Carolina  empowered  the  proprietors  to  govern  the  province 
"with  the  advice,  assent  and  approbation  of  the  Freemen 
of  the  said  Province.3*  The  next  paragraph  of  this  charter 


33Acts  of  1842,  Ch.  191,  Sec.  5. 
34Acts  of  1831,  Ch.  102,  Sec.  1. 
35Acts  of  1826,  Ch.  22,  Sec.  6. 
36Acts  of  1829,  Ch.  23,  Sec.  21. 
"Acts  of  1852,  Ch.  158,  Sec.  1. 

38McDonald,    William,    Select    Charters    Illustrative    of    American 
History,  1606-1775,  122,  S.  5. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  163 

refefrs  to  the  "assemblies  of  free  holders."39  There  is  no 
exclusion  on  the  basis  of  color  in  either  of  these  references. 
"In  1703,  servants,  negroes,  aliens,  Jews  and  common  sailors 
voted  for  members  of  the  General  Assembly."40  The  act 
of  1715  made  it  lawful  for  "the  inhabitants  and  free  men  in 
each  precinct  ...  to  choose  two  freeholders  ...  to  sit  and 
vote  in  the  said  Assembly."40  It  is  noticed  here  that  the 
terms,  inhabitants,  free  men,  and  freeholders,  included  free 
negroes.  Hence,  to  exclude  them,  the  act  specifically  stated 
that  no  negro,  mulatto,  or  Indian  could  vote  for  members  of 
the  Assembly.42  This  act  remained  the  basis  of  suffrage 
to  1835. 

Efforts  were  made  by  the  royal  governors  to  restrict  the 
suffrage  to  freeholders.  They  repeatedly  received  royal  in- 
structions to  this  effect,  but  the  law  of  1715  prevailed,  and 
freemen  continued  to  vote.41 

In  1735,  a  new  basis  for  the  suffrage  was  established. 
Freemen  were  disfranchised,  but  the  suffrage  was  indis- 
criminately given  to  freeholders  who  owned  fifty  acres  of 
land.4-  The  exclusion  of  negroes,  mulattoes,  and  Indians 
prevalent  in  the  act  of  1715,  was  abolished.  Land-holding 
and  not  color  was  the  basis  of  the  suffrage.  The  only  ad- 
ditional change  in  the  suffrage  qualification  before  the  Revo- 
lution was  made  by  the  act  of  1751,  which  required  free- 
holders to  be  twenty-one  years  of  age  in  order  to  vote.48 

The  North  Carolina  constitution  of  1776  granted  the  fran- 
chise to  all  free  men  without  regard  to  race  or  color  with 
the  single  limitation  of  residence.44  This  was  the  franchise 
law  that  was  extended  to  the  Southwest  Territory  by  the 
Act  of  Cession  of  1790,  which  stated,  "that  the  laws  in  force 


S9McDonald,  Op  Cit.,  123,  Sec.  6. 

40Col.  Recs.  of  North  Carolina,  I,  639;  State  Recs.  of  N.  C.,  XXIV, 
14. 

4ilbid.,  Ill,  93,  560. 

42Ibid.,  IV,  106;  Davis,  James,  Laws  of  North  Carolina,  79. 

43Davis,  177-180. 

44North  Carolina  Constitution  of  1776,  Sees,  7,  8,  and  9;  Col.  Recs., 
XXIII,  881. 


164  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

and  use  in  the  state  of  North  Carolina  at  the  time  of  passing 
the  act,  shall  be,  and  continue  in  full  force  until  the  same 
shall  be  repealed,  or  otherwise  altered  by  the  legislative  au- 
thority of  the  said  Territory."45  Congress  accepted  the  Ter- 
ritory on  the  above  condition.46  The  suffrage  was  not 
changed  by  the  legislature  of  the  Southwest  Territory. 

The  basis  of  the  suffrage  remained  unchanged  from  the 
establishment  of  the  Constitution  of  North  Carolina  in  1776 
to  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution  of  Tennessee  in 
1796.  However,  the  Revolutionary  State  of  Franklin,  which 
flourished  in  western  North  Carolina  from  1784  to  1788, 
proposed  a  constitution  that  gave  the  suffrage  "to  every 
free  male  inhabitant"  who  was  twenty-one  years  old.47 
This  is  significant  because  it  was  an  independent  expression 
of  the  people  in  the  territory  that  later  became  Tennessee. 

B.  Suffrage  in  the  Convention  of  1796.  Several  propo- 
sitions relative  to  suffrage  were  made  in  the  Convention  of 
1796.  February  1,  Mr.  Henderson,  delegate  from  Hawkins 
County,  moved  that  the  first  section  in  Article  III  be  made 
to  read,  "All  citizens  of  this  state,  possessing  of  a  freehold 
in  their  own  right,  and  all  persons  who  have  done  duty  in 
the  militia,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  any  election,  in  the 
county  where  the  freehold  lies,  or  where  he  resides."48  This 
motion  failed  but  it  is  noticed  that  the  suffrage  is  not  based 
on  color.  If  the  motion  had  prevailed,  it  would  have  dis- 
franchised all  freemen,  both  white  and  black,  who  had  not 
done  miltary  service.  Mr.  Outlaw,  of  Jefferson  County, 
moved  that  "all  persons  liable  by  law  to  militia  duty  should 
be  allowed  to  vote."50  If  this  motion  had  prevailed,  it 
would  have  given  all  freemen  the  suffrage  with  no  limita- 
tion, because  by  Section  26,  the  freemen  were  liable  to 
militia  duty.  The  Convention  finally  gave  the  suffrage  to 
all  freemen.  Article  III,  Section  1,  of  the  Constitution  of 

45U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,  I,  108. 

46Ibid.,  First  Congress,  1790;  Chap.  VI,  Sec.  II,  pp.  106-9. 
47 Constitution  of  Frankland,  Sec.  4;  Ramsey,  J.  G.  M.,  Annals  of 
Tennessee,  p.  327. 

48Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1796,  p.  21. 
49Ibid.,  p.  22. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  165 

1796,  declared  that  "all  freemen  of  the  age  of  twenty-one 
years  and  upwards,  possessing  a  freehold  in  the  county 
where  they  may  vote,  and  being  inhabitants  of  this  state, 
and  all  freemen  who  have  been  inhabitants  of  any  one 
county  within  the  state  for  a  period  of  six  months  imme- 
diately preceding  the  date  of  election,  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote  for  members  of  the  general  assembly,  for  the  county  in 
which  they  respectively  reside.50 

*  It  is  worth  noticing  in  this  connection  that,  while  the 
suffrage  was  given  to  all  freemen,  representation  in  the 
legislature  was  based  on  the  number  of  free  whites.  The 
constitution  declared  that  "representation  shall  be  regulated 
according  to  numbers,  to  be  apportioned  to  each  county  by 
law,  upon  such  ratio,  as  that  the  number  of  senators  and 
representatives  .  .  .  shall  not  exceed  thirty-nine  until  the 
number  of  free  white  persons  shall  be  two  hundred  thou- 
sand."51 The  convention  in  its  various  discussions  used 
the  terms,  "freemen,"  "freeholders,"  "all  citizens,"  "all 
persons,"  and  "free  white  persons."  This  clearly  shows 
that  the  convention  was  carefully  discriminating  between 
these  terms  when  it  used  them.  Why  did  the  convention 
use  "free  white  persons"  as  the  basis  of  representation? 
It  knew  that  the  term,  "freemen,"  would  give  representa- 
tion to  free  negroes.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
gave  representation  to  three-fifths  of  the  slaves.  The  Ken- 
tucky constitution  of  1799  stated  that,  "In  all  elections  for 
representatives  every  free  male  citizen  (negroes,  mulattoes 
and  Indians  excepted)  shall  enjoy  the  right  of  election."52 
It  is  distinctly  shown  here  that  it  was  understood  that  "free 
male  citizen"  included  "free  negro."  Hence,  if  he  is  not 
to  be  enfranchised,  he  must  be  excepted.  Why  would  this 
term  be  so  well  understood  in  Kentucky  and  not  in  Ten- 
nessee? 

Again,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  the  onstitution  of 
1796  in  Tennessee  was  drafted  by  a  committee  of  very  able 


^Constitution  of  1796,  Art.  Ill,  Sec.  1;   see  also  Journal  of  the 
Convention  of  1796,  p.  16. 
silbid.,  Art.  I,  Sec.  1. 
52Kentucky  Constitution  of  1799,  Art.  2,  Sec.  8. 


166  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

statesmen,  among  whom  were  such  distinguished  men  as 
Andrew  Jackson,  William  Cocke,  Joseph  Anderson,  Wil- 
liam Blount,  W.  C.  C.  Claiborne,  and  John  Rhea.53  Andrew 
Jackson  was  a  very  prominent  leader  in  the  Convention; 
William  Cocke  had  participated  in  founding  the  Franklin 
State,  and  was,  also,  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Transylvania 
Republic,  twice  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  from  Ten- 
nessee, and  a  leader  in  the  Mississippi  Territory.  Joseph 
Anderson  was  one  of  the  territorial  Judges  for  sixteen 
years,  United  States  Senator  and  Comptroller  of  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States.  William  Blount  had  been  gov- 
ernor of  the  Southwest  Territory.  William  C.  C.  Claiborne 
was  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court  of  the  State,  the  successor 
of  Andrew  Jackson  in  Congress,  first  Governor  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  Mississippi,  Governor  of  Louisiana,  and  United 
States  senator-elect  at  the  time  of  his  death.  John  Rhea 
was  for  eighteen  years  a  member  of  Congress.  It  is  un- 
reasonable to  suppose  that  these  men  together  with  their 
colleagues  did  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word  "freemen" 
in  the  Constitution  of  1796.'4  They  certainly  knew  that  the 
free  negro  had  been  voting  in  Colonial  North  Carolina,  that 
he  continued  to  vote  under  her  constitution  of  1776,  and  that 
he  would  vote  in  Tennessee  as  he  had  been  doing  before  the 
separation  from  North  Carolina  unless  he  was  disfran- 
chised. 

The  contention  of  this  thesis  is  that  the  free  negro  was  in- 
tentionally and  deliberately  enfranchised  by  the  Convention 
of  1796.  The  proof  may  be  summarized  as  follows:  1st, 
that  the  terms  "freemen"  and  "freeholders"  were  the  sub- 
ject of  discussion  throughout  Colonial  North  Carolina  with 
thorough  understanding  as  to  their  meaning ;  2nd,  that  the 
act  of  1715  specifically  excepted  the  negro  from  the  term 
"freemen,"  thus  disfranchising  him ;  4th,  that  the  act  of 
1735  re-enfranchised  him;  5th,  that  the  North  Carolina 
constitution  of  1776  enfranchised  him ;  6th,  that  the  con- 
vention of  1796  in  Tennessee  used  the  terms  "freemen," 

53Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1796,  pp.  5-6. 

54Caldwell,  Joshua  W.,   Constitutional  History  of  Tennessee,  132. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  167 

"freeholders,"  and  "free  white  persons,"  showing  that  it 
must  have  knowingly  used  these  terms ;  7th,  that  these  terms 
were  carefully  used  in  contemporary  constitutions ;  and  8th, 
that  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  able  and  experienced  states- 
men that  framed  the  Tennessee  Constitution  were  not  con- 
versant with  these  terms. 

C.  Suffrage  from  1796  to  1834.  From  1796  to  1834 
there  was  a  complete  revolution  in  the  attitude  of  Tennessee 
people  toward  the  negro.  This  has  already  been  pointed 
out  in  the  discussion  of  the  churches,  manumission  societies, 
and  the  policy  of  exclusion  adopted  in  1831.  Attention  has 
already  been  called  to  the  growing  economic  importance  of 
slavery  in  the  period  and  the  consequent  opposition  to  the 
free  negro. 

The  political  influence  of  the  free  negro  was  also  a  factor 
in  this  change.  From  1810  to  1820  there  was  an  increase 
of  108  per  cent  in  free  negroes  and  266  per  cent  increase 
in  the  period  from  1820  to  1830.  In  1830,  there  were  twenty 
counties  containing  almost  one  hundred  free  negroes  each; 
five,  two  hundred  each;  four,  two  hundred  and  fifty  each; 
three,  three  hundred  each ;  two,  four  hundred  each ;  and  one 
containing  about  five  hundred.  The  greatest  number  of 
free  negroes  in  any  one  county  was  in  Davidson  County, 
and  it  was  a  delegate  from  this  county  that  made  the  motion 
in  the  convention  of  1834  to  disfranchise  the  free  negro. 
There  were  at  this  time  about  six  hundred  free  negroes 
in  Davidson  County,  and  there  were  471  in  1830  and  794 
in  1840/'n 

Hon.  John  Petit,  United  States  Senator  from  Indiana, 
said  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  May  25,  1854,  in  the  debate 
on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  that  "Old  Cave  Johnson,  an 
honored  and  respectable  gentleman,  formerly  Postmaster- 
General,  and  for  a  long  time  a  member  of  the  other  house, 
told  me,  with  his  own  lips,  that  the  first  time  he  was  elected 
to  Congress  from  Tennessee,  it  was  by  the  vote  of  free 
negroes,  and  he  was  an  iron  manufacturer,  and  had  a  large 
number  of  free  negroes,  as  well  as  slaves,  in  his  employ. 


•~>U.  S.  Census,  1870,  I,  Population,  p.  12. 


168  University^  of  Texas  Bulletin 

I  well  recollect  the  number  he  stated.  One  hundred  and 
forty-five  free  negroes  in  his  employ,  went  to  the  ballot  box, 
and  elected  him  to  Congress  the  first  time  he  was  elected."56 
Charles  Sumner  said  he  heard  John  Bell  make  the  same  con- 
fession with  regard  to  his  election.'7  It  is  further  claimed 
that,  during  political  campaigns  in  Tennessee,  "The  oppos- 
ing candidates  for  the  nonce,  oblivious  of  social  distinction 
and  intent  only  on  catching  votes,  hobnobbed  with  the  men 
and  swung  corners  all  with  dusky  damsels  at  election 
balls."58  The  fact  that  the  Constitutional  Convention  of 
1834  by  resolution  excluded  the  free  negro  from  voting  on 
ratification  of  the  constitution  shows  that  his  vote  was  a 
factor  in  close  elections.  Judge  Catron  in  the  case  of  Fish- 
er's Negroes  v.  Dabbs  said:  "The  free  negro's  vote  at  the 
polls  is  of  as  high  value  as  that  of  any  man."59 

D.  Suffrage  in  the  Convention  of  1834.  The  contest  over 
disfranchising  the  free  negro  in  the  convention  of  1834  pre- 
sents the  final  phase  of  the  suffrage  problem.  Amendments 
to  the  constitution  of  1796,  favoring  and  opposing  negro 
suffrage,  were  introduced  in  the  convention  and  by  June  26 
were  being  debated  in  the  committee  of  the  whole.  One  of 
the  strongest  advocates  of  suffrage  for  the  negro  was  Mr. 
Cahall,  who  said  he  was  "unwilling  to  disfranchise  any  man 
black  or  white,  who  had  enjoyed  the  right  of  suffrage  under 
the  present  constitution."60 

Mr.  Canall's  position  was  as  follows:  first,  he  would  let 
the  free  negroes  then  in  the  state  continue  to  vote ;  second, 
he  believed  that  an  unqualified  suffrage  for  free  negroes 
would  make  the  state  an  asylum  for  free  negroes;  third, 
he  contended  that  the  suffrage  was  a  conventional  and  not 
a  natural  right.  He  said  that  our  government  was  a  "con- 
stitutional and  not  a  natural  one."61 


56Congressional  Globe,  1st  Session,  33d  Congress,  1805;  2nd  Session, 
38th  Congress,  284. 

"The  Works  of  Charles  Sumner,  X,  192. 

58Buxton,  Rev.  Jarvis  Bury,  Reminiscences  of  the  Bench  and  Fay- 
etteville  Bar,  p.  93. 

59Fisher's  Negroes  v.   Dabbs,   6  Yerger,   126    (1834). 

60Nashville  Republican,  July  10,  1834. 

61Nashville  Republican  and   State  Gazette,  July  1,   1834. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  169 

Mr.  Allen,  June  27,  speaking  of  the  third  article  of  the 
constitution,  in  the  committee  of  the  whole,  said:  "I  am 
against  inserting  the  word  white  before  the  word  freeman, 
in  this  clause  of  the  constitution,  because  it  goes  to  exclude 
a  description  of  persons  from  the  right  of  voting,  that  has 
exercised  it  for  thirty-eight  years  under  the  present  con- 
stitution, without  any  evil  ever  having  grown  out  of  it."62 

On  June  27,  the  following  resolution  was  introduced  into 
the  committee  of  the  whole : 

That  every  free  male  person  of  color,  being  an 
inhabitant  six  months  previous  to  the  day  of  elec- 
tion, of  any  county  in  this  State  six  months  imme- 
diately preceding  the  election,  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote  in  said  county  in  which  he  has  so  resided,  for 
Governor,  members  of  Congress,  members  of  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  and  other  officers.62 

Mr.  Purdy  introduced  the  following  amendment  to  the 
above  motion : 

That  every  free  man  of  color  possessing  in  his 
own  right  in  the  county  in  which  he  may  reside  and 
propose  to  vote,  a  freehold  or  personal  property  of 
$200,  on  which  he  has  paid  a  tax  that  has  been  as- 
sessed at  least  six  months  previous  to  the  day  of 
election,  and  being  an  inhabitant  of  this  State  at 
least  twelve  months  previous  to  the  day  of  election, 
shall  be  entitled  to  vote  for  members  to  the  General 
Assembly  for  the  county  or  district  in  which  he 
shall  reside  provided  no  free  person  emigrating  to 
this  State  after  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution, 
shall  be  entitled  to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage.62 

This  amendment  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Marr  offered  the  following  amendment  to  the  motion : 

That  no  person,  who  is  not  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  and  of  this  State,  has  a  right  in  any 
election  in  tnis  State.65 

This  motion  was  laid  on  ttie  table,  and  the  original  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  by  the  committee  of  the  whole.     June  the 

62Nashville  Republican  and  State  Gazette,  June  28,  1834. 


170  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

28th,  Mr.  Marr,  delegate  from  Weakley  and  Obion  counties, 
introduced  the  following  resolutions : 

Resolved,  that  free  persons  of  color,  including 
mulattoes,  mustees,  and  Indians  were  not  parties 
to  our  political  compact,  nor  were  they  represented 
in  the  Convention  which  formed  the  evidence  of 
the  compact,  under  which  the  free  people  of  the 
State,  and  of  the  United  States,  are  associated  for 
civil  government.  Nor,  are  they  recognized  by  our 
political  fabrics  as  subjects  of  our  naturalization 
laws ;  but  on  the  contrary,  are,  by  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States,  prohibited  from 
being  brought  to  the  United  States,  either  as  prop- 
erty, or  as  being  within  the  scope  and  meaning  of 
our  provision  relating  to  naturalization  and  citizen- 
ship and  hence  their  supposed  claim  to  the  exercise 
of  the  great  right  of  free  suffrage  is  and,  shall  be, 
not  only  not  recognized,  but  prohibited.  Resolved 
that  all  free  white  men  of  the  age  of  twenty-one 
and  upwards,  who  are  natural  born  citizens  of  this 
State,  or  of  any  one  of  the  United  States,  and  all 
who  have  been  naturalized  and  admitted  to  the 
rights  and  privileges  as  citizens  of  the  United 
States  by  our  laws,  and  who,  being  inhabitants  of 
this  State,  and  who  have  a  fixed  or  known  resi- 
dence in  the  county  or  election  district,  six  months 
immediately  preceding  the  day  of  election,  shall  be 
entitled  to  vote  for  members  of  either  house  of  the 
General  Assembly,  in  and  for  the  county  or  dis- 
trict in  which  they  may  reside.63 

These  resolutions  were  referred  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole. 

July  1,  Mr.  Loving,  in  the  committee  of  the  whole,  said: 

That  when  this  question  was  first  taken  up  by 
the  committee  he  then  believed  he  should  content 
himself  with  giving1  his  silent  vote,  and  he  re- 
mained of  that  opinion  until  he  ascertained  that 
the  friends  of  free  persons  of  color,  were  much 
more  numerous  than  he  had  first  supposed ;  he  was 
truly  astonished  and  regretted  to  see  old  members, 
yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  old  gray  headed  gentlemen  in 

63Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1834,  p.  107. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  171 

plaintive  and  importuning  language,  contending 
for  a  proposition  to  let  free  negroes,  mulattoes, 
etc.,  exercise  the  highest  right  and  privilege  in  a 
free  government — that  of  the  right  of  suffrage. 
He  would  have  supposed  that  those  old  members 
could  ere  this  have  seen  the  impolicy  of  such  a 
course  as  he  was  gratified  to  see  that  there  were 
some,  who  had  long  since  condemned  that  feature 
on  our  constitution  and  who  were  now  ready  and 
even  ably  contending  with  him  to  expunge  that 
odious  and  very  objectionable  feature  from  the 
constitution.6* 

Mr.  Loving's  arguments  against  the  suffrage  for  free  ne- 
groes were  about  as  follows: 

1.  He  objected  to  making  the  suffrage  a  nat- 
ural right,  an  inalienable  and  inherent  right.     He 
said  it  did  not  belong  to  the  state  of  society,  but 
grew  out  of  the  body  politic. 

2.  He  said  that  he  knew  of  free  colored  men  of 
respectability,  probity,  and  merit,  but  that  partic- 
ular cases  of  merit  did  not  justify  a  policy  of  let- 
ting free  negroes  vote. 

3.  He  said  some  gentlemen  contended  that  Ten- 
nessee should  let  them  vote  because  North  Carolina 
did.    He  pointed  out  in  this  connection  that  North 
Carolina  and  Tennessee  were  the  only  states  in 
the  Union  that  let  the  negroes  vote,  and  that  North 
Carolina  was  calling  a  convention  that  would  dis- 
franchise them. 

4.  He  thought  that  the  suffrage,  being  a  con- 
ventional right,  should  be  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  possess  the  greatest  degree  of  moral  and  in- 
tellectual cultivation. 

5.  He  pointed  out  that  the  same  argument  that 
was  being  made  in  behalf  of  the  free  negroes  would 
give  the  suffrage  to  women  and  children. 

6.  He  did  not  think  that  because  some  negroes 
fought  for  American  Independence  in  1776,  they 
were  entitled  to  the  suffrage.64 

July  15,  Mr.  Marr  opposed  giving  the  free  negro  the  suf- 
frage for  the  following  reasons : 

64Nashville   Republican  and   State   Gazette,   July   5,   1834. 


172  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

1.  He  did  not  think  the  convention  of  1796  in- 
tended to  give  him  the  suffrage,  and  he  opposed 
it  now  for  that  reason. 

2.  He  maintained  that  black  and  white  men 
could  not  live  together  on  terms  of  equality;  they 
must  separate  or  one  rule  the  other. 

3.  He  contended  that  Tennessee  did  not  have 
the  power  to  emancipate  her  slaves ;  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  prevented  it. 

4.  He  concluded  that  the  voice  of  the  people, 
the   admonitions   of  prudence   and   the  want   of 
power,  all  directed  that  this  convention  should  not 
give,  nor  attempt  to  give,  negroes,  mulattoes,  or 
Indians  the  suffrage.65 

Mr.  Newton  Cannon  of  Williamson  County,  who  was 
chairman  of  the  committee  of  the  whole,  reported  the  con- 
stitution in  its  first  form  to  the  convention,  July  25,  1834.66 
Article  II,  Section  1,  said: 

Every  free  man  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years 
and  upwards,  being  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
and  an  inhabitant  of  the  county  of  this  state  where- 
in he  may  offer  his  vote,  six  months  immediately 
preceding  the  day  of  election,  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote  for  members  of  the  General  Assembly  and 
other  civil  officers,  for  the  county  in  which  he  may 
reside.66 

It  is  noticed  that  at  this  time  the  forces  for  suffrage  for  the 
free  negro  had  won.     .  • .  - 

The  constitution  was  now  reported  as  a  whole  to  the  con- 
vention, which  began  to  consider  in  in  detail.  By  July  31, 
Article  III,  Section  1,  was  reached.  Mr.  Robert  Weakley, 
delegate  from  Davidson  County,  moved  that  the  word, 
"white,"  be  inserted  after  the  word  "free"  in  Article  III, 
Section  1.  This  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  33  to  23.67 
Mr.  Mathew  Stephenson  of  Washington  County  moved  "that 
no  freeman  who  is  now  a  resident  of  this  state  and  who  has 
heretofore  exercised  the  right  of  voting  shall  hereafter  be 

65Nashville  Republican  and  State  Gazette,  July  15,  1834. 
66 Journal  of  the  Convention  of  1834,  p.  171. 
"Ibid.,  p.  28. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  173 

debarred  from  that  privilege."  This  motion  failed  by  a  vote 
of  34  to  22.68  A  change  of  six  votes  on  the  first  motion 
would  have  given  the  free  negro  the  suffrage.  The  liberal 
forces  in  Tennessee  politics  at  this  date  were  stronger  than 
history  has  usually  acknowledged. 

V.    LIMITATIONS  UPON  THE  FREEDOM  OF  FREE  NEGROES. 

The  free  negro  was  forbidden  to  entertain  a  slave  in  his 
home  at  night  or  during  the  Sabbath.  For  violation  of  this 
restriction,  he  was  fined  $2.50  for  the  first  and  $5.00  for 
each  succeeding  offense.69  This  fine  was  increased  to  $20 
in  1806.70  If  he  could  not  pay  these  fines,  he  was  hired  out 
by  the  constable  of  his  district  until  his  wages  amounted  to 
the  fines  and  all  costs. 

There  was  no  restriction  on  marriage  between  free  ne- 
groes, but  a  free  negro  could  not  marry  a  slave  without  the 
master's  consent,  given  in  writing  and  attested  by  two  jus- 
tices of  the  peace.  He  was  fined  $25  for  an  illegal  marriage 
with  a  slave,  and,  if  he  could  not  pay  the  fine,  he  was  forced 
to  serve  the  master  of  the  slave  for  one  year.71 

It  was  a  misdemeanor  for  a  free  negro  to  keep  a  tippling 
house,  and  subjected  him  to  not  less  than  a  fifty  dollar  fine. 
He  was  also  forbidden  to  sell,  give,  or  loan  a  slave  a  gun, 
pistol,  or  sword  without  the  consent  of  the  owner  of  the 
slave.72  He  could  not  associate  with  slaves  except  with  the 
permission  of  their  owners.73 

The  free  negro  was  required  to  carry  a  copy  of  his  reg- 
istration with  him  wherever  he  went.  He  could  be  sus- 
pected at  any  time  or  might  be  stolen.  His  registration  cer- 
tificate was  his  surest  guarantee  of  personal  freedom.  In 
the  mere  matter  of  travelling  in  the  community,  he  was  con- 
stantly subject  to  this  limitation.  If  he  crossed  county  lines, 
the  certificate  was  absolutely  required.74 

68Ibid.,  p.  209. 
69Acts  of  1787,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  2. 
^Acts  of  1806,  Ch.  32,  Sec.  4. 
^Acts  of  1787,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  3. 
72Acts  of  1835,  Ch.  58,  Sec.  2. 
73Acts  of  1806,  Ch.  32,  Sec.  4. 
of  1807,  Ch.  100,  Sec.  1. 


174  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

VI.    THE  LEGAL  STATUS  OF  THE  FREE  NEGRO. 

What,  then,  was  the  legal  status  of  the  free  negro?  He 
was  only  a  quasi-free  man.  He  could  sue  and  be  sued.  He 
could  make  a  contract  and  inherit  property.  He  enjoyed 
legal  marriage.  He  could  buy  and  sell.  He  could  not  be  a 
witness  against  a  white  man.  He  could  not  vote  after  1834. 
He  was  ineligible  for  office.  He  was  a  sort  of  inmate  on 
parole.  His  conduct  was  frequently  guaranteed  by  bond. 
He  enjoyed  certain  privileges  and  immunities,  which  the 
state  might  take  away  from  him  if  it  saw  fit.  He  was  not 
a  citizen  in  the  sense  in  which  the  term  is  used  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  and,  therefore,  was  not  en- 
titled to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  several 
states.  Judge  Green,  speaking  of  the  free  negro's  rights  in 
the  case  of  the  State  v.  Claiborne,  said :  "The  laws  have  never 
allowed  the  enjoyment  of  equal  rights,  or  the  immunities  of 
the  free  white  citizen."75 

He  had  no  place  in  society,  socially  or  economically.  He 
could  not  associate  with  the  whites.  He  could  keep  the  com- 
pany of  slaves  only  by  permission.  His  own  class  was  so 
small  that  his  opportunities  were  very  limited  there.  Pov- 
erty, ignorance,  oppression,  discrimination,  and  hostility  of 
both  slave  and  white  man  made  his  position  in  actual  life 
much  worse  than  his  legal  status.  In  the  industrial  world 
there  was  no  place  for  him.  The  labor  was  done  by  slaves. 
There  was  no  factory  work  for  him.  He  could  farm  if  he 
could  rent  or  buy  land.  He  was  usually  not  wanted  in  the 
community. 

The  black  man,  in  the  United  States,  said  Judge 
Catron,  is  degraded  by  his  color,  and  sinks  into 
vice  and  worthlessness  from  want  of  motive  to  vir- 
tuous and  elevated  conduct.  The  black  man  in 
these  states  may  have  the  power  of  volition.  He 
may  go  and  come  when  it  pleases  him,  without  a 
domestic  master  to  control  the  actions  of  his  per- 
son; but  to  be  politically  free,  to  be  the  peer  and 
equal  to  the  white  man,  to  enjoy  the  offices,  trusts, 
and  privileges  our  institutions  confer  on  the  white 

"State  v.  Claiborne,  1  Meigs,  337  (1858). 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  175 

men,  is  hopeless  now  and  ever.  The  slave  who  re- 
ceives the  protection  and  care  of  a  tolerable  master 
holds  a  condition  here  superior  to  the  negro  who  is 
freed  from  domestic  slavery.  He  is  a  reproach  and 
a  by-word  with  the  slave  himself,  who  taunts  his 
fellow  slave  by  telling  him  "he  is  as  worthless  as  a 
free  negro."  The  consequence  is  inevitable.  The 
free  black  man  lives  amongst  us  without  motive 
and  without  hope.  He  seeks  no  avocation;  is  sur- 
rounded with  necessities,  is  sunk  in  degredation; 
crime  can  sink  him  no  deeper,  and  he  commits  it, 
of  course.  This  is  not  only  true  of  the  free  negro 
residing  in  the  slaveholding  states  of  the  Union. 
In  non-slaveholding  states  of  this  Union  the  people 
are  less  accustomed  to  the  squalid  and  disgusting 
wretchedness  of  the  negro,  have  less  sympathy  for 
him,  earn  their  means  of  subsistence  with  their  own 
hands,  and  are  more  economical  in  parting  with 
them  than  he  for  whom  the  slave  labors,  for  which 
he  is  entitled  the  proceeds  and  of  which  the  free 
negro  is  generally  the  participant,  and  but  too 
often  in  the  character  of  the  receiver  of  stolen 
goods.  Nothing  can  be  more  untrue  than  that  the 
free  negro  is  more  respectable  as  a  member  of 
society  in  the  non-slaveholding  states  than  in  the 
slaveholding  states.  In  each  he  is  a  degraded  out- 
cast, and  his  fancied  freedom  a  delusion.  With 
us  the  slave  ranks  him  in  character  and  comfort, 
nor  is  there  a  fair  motive  to  absolve  him  from  his 
duties  incident  to  domestic  slavery  if  he  is  to  con- 
tinue amongst  us.  Generally,  and  almost  univer- 
sally, society  suffers  and  the  negro  suffers  by  man- 
umission."76 


76Fisher's  Negroes  v.  Dabbs,  6  Yerger,  131  (1834) 


CHAPTER  VII 

ABOLITION 

There  was  throughout  the  period  of  slavery  in  Tennessee 
a  determined  minority  that  favored  its  abolition.  This  mi- 
nority was  not  confined  to  the  non-slaveholders,  but  as  late 
as  1834  slave-holders  hoped  that  some  method  of  abolition 
would  finally  be  devised.  This  abolition  sentiment  ex- 
pressed itself  in  various  ways. 

I.    PRIVATE  ABOLITION. 

A.  METHODS.  (1)  By  Deed.  There  were  three  steps 
in  the  process  of  emancipation  by  any  method.  Two  of 
these  were  taken  by  the  owner  and  one  by  the  state.  The 
owner  renounced  his  right  of  property  in  the  slave  and  then 
gave  bond  with  good  security  for  his  conduct  and  mainte- 
nance. To  complete  the  process  of  emancipation,  the  state's 
consent  was  necessary.  This  was  given  exclusively  by  the 
county  courts  until  1829,1  when  the  Legislature  gave  the 
chancery  courts  jurisdiction  of  cases  involving  wills.2  After 
1854,  a  petition  for  emancipation  could  be  filed  in  any  court 
of  record.3  Of  course,  the  legislature  by  virtue  of  its  ple- 
nary power  could  and  did  grant  petitions  for  freedom 
throughout  the  period  of  slavery.4  The  county  court  could 
not  consider  a  petition  for  emancipation  unless  nine  or  a 


lActs  of  1777,  Ch.  6,  Sec.  2. 

2Acts  of  1829,  Ch.  29,  Sec.  1.  A  special  legislative  grant  was  requi- 
site for  a  valid  emancipation  in  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  Alabama, 
and  Mississippi.  See  James'  Dig.,  398,  Act  of  1820;  Prince's  Dig., 
456,  Act  of  1801;  Toulman's  Dig.,  632;  Mississippi  Rev.  Code,  386. 
In  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee,  the  courts  granted  emancipation — 
Haywood's  Manual,  525;  Act  of  1801,  Ch.  27.  In  Kentucky,  Mis- 
souri, Virginia,  and  Maryland,  the  master  exercised  this  power  under 
rules  and  regulations  established  by  the  statutes  of  these  states.  2  Litt. 
and  Swi.,  1155;  2  Missouri  Laws,  744;  1  Rev.  Code  of  Virginia,  433; 
Maryland  Laws,  Act  of  1809,  Ch.  171. 

sActs  of  1854,  Ch.  50,  Sec.  1. 

^Petitions  in  State  Archives. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  111 

majority  of  the  court  were  present  and  the  consent  of  two- 
thirds  of  those  present  was  necessary  to  grant  the  petition.5 
The  clerk  of  the  court  made  a  record  of  the  emancipation 
and  gave  the  slave  a  copy.6 

One  way  by  which  the  master  could  relinquish  his  prop- 
erty rights  in  the  slave  was  by  deed.  A  deed  of  freedom 
to  a  slave  was  valid  only  between  him  and  the  owner  or 
his  representatives.  It  did  not  operate  against  the  claim  of 
creditors.  A  deed  of  emancipation  had  to  be  witnessed  and 
recorded  before  it  was  binding  upon  the  master.7  Judge 
Catron,  speaking  of  a  deed  of  manumission,  in  the  case  of 
Fisher's  Negroes  v.  Dabbs,  said : 

It  is  binding  on  the  representatives  of  the  divi- 
sor in  the  one  case,  and  the  grantor  in  the  other, 
and  communicates  a  right  to  the  slave;  but  it  is  an 
imperfect  right,  until  the  state,  the  community  of 
which  such  emancipated  person  is  to  become  a 
member,  assents  to  the  contract  between  the  mas- 
ter and  the  slave.8 

(2)  By  Will.  A  bequest  of  freedom  by  will  was  bind- 
ing between  the  master  or  his  representative  and  the  slave, 
but,  until  1829,  the  slave  could  not  institute  suit  to  complete 
the  process  of  freedom  in  case  the  representative  of  the  mas- 
ter failed  to  take  such  action.  Administrators  of  estates 
took  advantage  of  this  weakness  of  the  law.  The  result 
was  that  either  such  a  negro,  being  helpless,  was  reduced  to 
slavery  again,  or  was  left  in  a  state  of  semi-freedom.  In 
1829,  the  state  gave  the  chancery  courts  jurisdiction  of  such 
cases  and  gave  such  a  negro  the  privilege  of  bringing  suit 
for  his  freedom  through  his  next  friend.9  Children  born  of 
a  mother  who  had  been  emancipated  by  will  but  who  did  not 
receive  her  freedom  until  the  expiration  of  a  term  of  years 

5  Acts  of  1801,  Ch.  27,  Sec.  3. 

6Ibid.,  Sec.  4. 

7  Acts  of  1784,  Ch.  10,  Sec.  7. 

8Fisher's  Negroes  v.  Dabbs,  6  Yerger,  119  (1834). 

"Acts  of  1829,  Ch.  29,  Sec.  1. 


178  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

received  their  freedom  at  the  same  time  the  mother  received 
hers.10 

(3)  By  Contract.     The  slave  could  enter  into  a  contract 
with  his  master  for  his  freedom  and  the  courts  would  en- 
force such  a  contract.11     This  contract  might  be  by  parol.1- 
A  contract  between  purchaser  and  seller  to  the  effect  that  a 
slave  be  emancipated  at  a  certain  date  was  binding  between 
the  owner  and  the  slave,  and  invested  the  slave  with  the 
right  to  complete  the  process  of  freedom  after  1829.    Such 
a  contract  did  not  weaken  the  claim  of  creditors,  nor  did  it 
compel  the  state  to  grant  the  freedom  of  the  slave.     The  ob- 
taining of  the  state's  consent,  while  conditioned  on  the  in- 
itiate step  of  the  master,  was  entirely  a  separate  procedure. 

(4)  By  Bill  of  Sale.     The  owner  could  sell  a  slave  to  an 
individual  or  a  society,  who  wanted  to  emancipate  him. 
Slaves  frequently  bought  themselves.     A  free  negro  some- 
times bought  husband  or  wife  and  children,  and  then  pe- 
titioned the  state  to  free  them.     All  bills  of  the  sale  of  slaves 
had  to  be  in  writing  and  attested  by  at  least  one  creditable 
witness.     If  the  bill  of  sale  was  contested,  two  witnesses 
were   required.13     Philanthropic   individuals   and   societies 
could  have  emancipated  a  great  many  slaves,  if  the  state 
had  not  made  its  consent  a  necessary  part  of  such  manumis- 
sion.    When  one  considers  how  the  benevolence  of  slave 
owners  or  the  generosity  of  societies  might  have  flooded  a 
community  with  stupid,  ignorant,  and  vicious  negroes,  he 
can  easily  see  why  society  asserted  the  right  to  regulate  the 
ownership  of  this  kind  of  property. 

(5)  By  Implication.     If  the  master  by  his  acts  or  treat- 
ment of  a  slave,  or  in  conversation  with  another,  indicated 
that  he  meant  to  give  a  slave  his  freedom,  the  courts  would 
recognize  this  as  a  basis  for  a  suit  for  freedom.14   The  insti- 


10Harris  v.  Clarissa,  6  Yerger,  227  (1834). 

"Acts  of  1833,  Ch.  81,  Sec.  2. 

12Lewis  v.  Simonton,  8  Humphrey,  189  (1847). 

^Acts  of  1784,  Ch.  10,  Sec.  7. 

14Lewis  v.  Simonton,  8  Humphrey,  189  (1847). 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  179 

tution  of  a  suit  against  a  slave  was  an  implication  of  his 
freedom,  otherwise  the  bequest  had  no  effect.15 

(6)  By  the  Effect  of  Foreign  Laws.  If  a  slave  owner 
of  Tennessee  moved  to  a  free  state  with  his  slaves  to  reside 
permanently,  this  would  indicate  his  intention  to  free  them. 
If  on  entering  such  a  state  with  his  slaves,  he  agreed  to  free 
them  at  a  certain  future  date,  this  would  give  the  slaves  a 
cause  for  a  suit  of  freedom  if  he  should  later  decide  to  re- 
turn to  Tennessee  before  the  expiration  of  the  time  set  for 
their  emanicpation.16  Of  course,  Tennessee  laws  permitted 
a  free  negro  to  adopt  a  master  and  convey  himself  into  slav- 
ery, but  this  was  voluntary  on  his  part.17 

B.      THE  EXTENT  OF  EMANCIPATION  IN  TENNESSEE. 

It  is  seldom  credited  to  southern  slaveholders  that  they 
gave  up  as  much  property  as  the  records  show  that  they 
did.  The  slaveholding  states  practiced  real  abolition  while 
New  England  and  the  other  great  abolition  sections  of  the 
country  were  agitators  of  abolition  rather  than  practition- 
ers of  it.  None  of  their  legislation  shook  the  shackles  from 
a  singly  slave,  according  to  eminent  authority,16  but  merely 
abolished  slavery  that  did  not  exist ;  that  is,  these  acts  said 
slaves  yet  unborn  would  be  free  at  birth,  or  at  certain  age. 
This  was  not  abolishing  slavery  by  freeing  those  actually 
held  in  slavery.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  those  held  in  slavery 
at  the  time  of  the  passing  of  these  acts  were  retained  as 
slaves  until  they  died,  or  were  sold  to  Southerners.  Of 
course,  all  over  the  country  there  was  abolition  by  private 
individuals,  but  the  point  is,  the  Southern  slaveholders  were 
the  real  abolitionists.  They  actually  gave  up  their  prop- 
erty, and  turned  loose  their  slaves.  There  were  7,300  free 
negroes  in  Tennessee  in  1860.  Considering  the  fact  that 
hundreds  of  free  negroes  went  to  Liberia,  Haiti,  Canada, 
and  the  free  states,  from  Tennessee,  and  that  hundreds  of 
free  negroes  died  in  the  period  from  1796  to  1860,  it  is  safe 
to  say  that,  at  $1000  each,  more  than  ten  million  dollars' 

15Wheeler,  p.  385. 

i«Ibid.,  p.  335. 

17Supra,  p.  160. 

"Phillips,  Ulrich  Bonnel,  American  Negro  Slavery,  p.  120. 


180  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

worth  of  property  was  surrendered  by  the  abolitionists  of 
Tennessee.  It  was  largely  the  small  farmer  slave-holders 
that  made  this  sacrifice  for  their  convictions. 

II.    ANTI-SLAVERY  LEADERS. 

Tennessee  made  a  substantial  contribution  to  the  anti- 
slavery  leadership  of  the  nation.  There  were  two  groups 
of  these  men.  One  of  them  left  the  state  for  a  larger  field 
of  activity,  and  might  be  called  Separatists,  while  the  mem- 
bers of  the  other  group  remained  at  home  and  fought  in 
the  ranks.  These  might  be  called  Puritans.  Jesse  Mills, 
Elihu  Swain,  John  Underbill,  Jesse  Lockhart,  Rev.  John 
Roy,  Peter  Cartwright,  Charles  Osborn,  and  Rev.  John  Ran- 
kin  are  examples  of  those  who  left  the  state  for  abolition 
centers.19 

Rev.  John  Roy  was  a  Methodist  preacher  who  rode  Green 
circuit  in  Tennessee.  He  was  a  man  of  considerable  ability, 
strong  feeling,  full  of  courage,  with  an  iron  will.  He  was 
strongly  anti-slavery  in  his  sentiment,  and  for  this  reason 
moved  to  Indiana,  where  he  died  in  1837  in  his  69th  year.20 

Peter  Cartwright  was  one  of  the  greatest  preachers  of 
Methodism.  He  was  a  native  Virginian,  but  entered  the 
Western  Conference  in  1804.  He  gave  a  great  part  of  his 
life  to  the  services  of  the  church  in  Tennessee.  He  was  a 
man  of  great  humor  and  wit,  and  was  a  fighter  against 
slavery.  He  finally  decided  that  his  labors  would  be  more 
appreciated  in  an  anti-slavery  state,  and  moved  to  Illinois 
in  1824.  He  became  increasingly  bitter  against  slave- 
holders in  his  old  age,  and  as  a  delegate  from  Illinois  to  the 
Methodist  Conference  in  1844,  he  voted  for  the  division  of 
the  church. 

Charles  Osborn  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  these  leaders 
who  left  the  state.  He  was  born  in  North  Carolina,  August 
21,  1795.  At  the  age  of  19,  he  moved  with  his  parents  to 
Tennessee,  where  he  became  a  Quaker  minister.  In  De- 
cember, 1814  he  organized  the  manumission  movement  in 
Tennessee,  and  was  its  leader  until  1816,  when  he  moved 

^Nile's  Weekly  Register,  Vol.  14,  pp.  321ff. 
2°McFerrin,  I,  150. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  181 

to  Ohio,  where  he  did  his  greatest  work.21  George  Wash- 
ington Julian  makes  Osborn  the  undoubted  leader  in  the 
abolition  movement  of  the  Northwest,  of  which  Ohio  was 
the  center  and  one  of  the  two  centers  of  the  abolition  move- 
ment in  the  nation.  Osborn  laid  the  foundation  for  his 
work  in  his  new  field,  for  which  Tennessee  had  prepared 
him  by  environment  and  previous  service,  by  establishing 
at  Mount  Pleasant,  Ohio,  in  1817,  the  Philanthropist,  which 
Julian  regards  as  the  first  anti-slavery  publication  in  the 
United  States.22  In  1818,  Osborn  removed  to  Indiana, 
where  he  lived  the  remainder  of  his  life. 

Rev.  John  Rankin  was  possibly  the  greatest  of  those 
leaders  who  saw  fit  to  leave  the  State  to  find  an  environ- 
ment more  in  harmony  with  his  attitude  toward  slavery. 
He  was  a  Presbyterian  minister,  "who  was  destined,  dur- 
ing the  three  decades  preceding  the  Civil  War,  to  occupy  a 
position  of  first  importance  among  the  anti-slavery  workers 
of  the  United  States.  In  1825,  he  published  his  famous 
Letters  on  Slavery,  which  went  through  many  editions  and 
exerted  a  very  great  influence.  Many  western  men  have 
called  him  the  'father  of  abolition/  and  it  was  not  an  un- 
common thing  in  the  thirties  to  hear  him  spoken  of  as  'the 
Martin  Luther  of  the  Cause'."23  Rev.  Rankin  said  that  in 
his  early  boyhood  a  majority  of  the  people  of  East  Tennessee 
were  abolitionists.24  The  first  issue  of  the  Emancipator, 
referring  to  the  loss  of  anti-slavery  leadership  in  Tennessee, 
said, 

Thousands  of  first-rate  citizens,  men  remarkable 
for  their  piety  and  virtue,  have;  within  twenty 
years  past,  removed  from  this  and  other  slave 
states  to  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois,  that  their  eyes 
may  be  hid  from  seeing  the  cruel  oppressor  lac- 
erate the  back  of  his  slaves,  and  that  their  ears 
may  not  hear  the  bitter  cries  of  the  oppressed. 
I  have  often  regretted  the  loss  of  so  much  virtue 

21Southern  History  Association  Publications,  II,  108. 
22Indiana  Historical  Society  Publications,  Vol.  2,  pp.  233ff. 
23Tennessee  History  Magazine,  Vol.  1>  p.  264. 
24Indiana  Historical  Society  Publications,  Vol.  2,  p.  246. 


182  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

from  these  slave  states,  which  held  too  little  be- 
fore. Could  all  those  who  have  removed  from 
slave  states  on  that  account,  to  even  the  single  state 
of  Ohio,  have  been  induced  to  remove  to,  and  settle 
in  Tennessee,  with  their  high-toned  love  for  uni- 
versal liberty  and  aversion  to  slavery,  I  think  that 
Tennessee  would  ere  this  have  begun  to  sparkle 
among  the  true  stars  of  liberty.25 

James  Jones,  Samuel  Doak,  Mr.  R.  G.  Williams,  Rev.  Phil- 
lip Lindsey,  and  Elihu  Embree  were  the  most  eminent  of 
the  group  of  leaders  in  abolition  who  chose  to  stand  their 
ground  and  fight  straight  from  the  shoulder.  James  Jones 
was  another  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  who  were 
really  the  leaders  in  the  anti-slavery  movement  in  Tennessee. 
Jones  was  thoroughly  devoted  to  the  cause  of  abolition, 
wrote  several  addresses  for  the  Tennessee  Manumission  So- 
ciety, and  was  for  several  years  its  president.26  His  un- 
timely death  in  1830  was  a  serious  loss  to  the  cause  of  hu- 
manity and  undoubtedly  was  the  death  of  the  Tennessee 
Manumission  Society.  Benjamin  Lundy  paid  the  following 
tribute  to  him  at  his  death : 

A  great  man  has  fallen,  one  of  the  brightest 
stars  in  the  galaxy  of  American  philanthropists 
has  set,  has  set  to  rise  no  more,  James  Jones, 
President  of  the  Manumission  Society  of  Tennes- 
see— the  steady,  ardent  and  persevering  friend  of 
universal  emancipation,  is  numbered  among  the 
dead  ...  No  language  can  impress  upon  the  mind 
an  adequate  idea  of  his  many  virtues.  Suffice  it  to 
say  that  few  men  living  can  fill  the  station  that  he 
held,  with  equal  honor  and  usefulness.  Long  shall 
the  poor  oppressed  African  mourn  for  his  irrep- 
arable loss.26 

Rev.  Samuel  Doak  was  the  leader  of  that  strong  and  able 
Presbyterian  contingent  that  came  from  North  Carolina  into 
Tennessee  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
"He  was  also  the  leading  educator  of  the  State  in  his  day.27 

2'Hoss,  E.  E.,  P.  of  V.  S.  H.  S.,  No.  2,  p.  11. 

26The  Genius,  II,  2. 

27 Southern  History  Association  Publication,  II,  103. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  183 

He  was  a  graduate  of  Princeton,  and  founded  in  Tennessee 
the  first  institution  of  learning  in  the  Mississippi  Valley.28 
He  was  a  prominent  abolitionist  from  1800  to  1830,  and 
from  1818  he  taught  immediate  abolition.  Among  his  pu- 
pils was  Sam  Houston,  who  opposed  secession,  John  Rankin, 
and  Rev.  Jesse  Lockhart,  who  preached  and  lectured  on  abo- 
lition in  Southern  Ohio.29 

Dr.  Philip  Lindsey,  who  was  President  of  the  University 
of  Nashville  from  1825  to  1850,  was  the  leader  in  organizing 
the  Tennessee  Colonization  Society.  He  was  its  president 
for  a  number  of  years  and  was  connected  with  it  until  his 
death.  His  educational  leadership  gave  the  colonization 
movement  a  prestige  and  influence  that  could  not  have  come 
through  any  other  channel.  The  University  of  Nashville  in 
this  period  was  the  leading  educational  institution  of  the 
State,  if  not  of  the  South.30 

Mr.  R.  G.  Williams  was  one  of  the  anti-slavery  leaders  who 
helped  to  make  Maryville,  in  East  Tennessee,  the  seat  of 
Maryville  Seminary,  now  Maryville  College,  one  of  the  great 
anti-slavery  centers  of  the  nation,  a  forerunner  of  Oberlin 
in  Ohio.  "We  are  rejoiced  to  know,"  said  The  Emancipator 
of  New  York,  "that  in  East  Tennessee  and  directly  in  the 
very  centter  of  the  slave-holding  country,  among  the  fast- 
nesses of  the  American  Alps,  God  has  secured  a  little  Spar- 
tan band  of  devoted  abolitionists  of  the  best  stamp,  whom 
neither  death  nor  danger  can  turn,"31  and  a  later  issue  of 
The  Emancipator,  quoting  the  letter  of  a  student  of  Mary- 
ville College,  said,  "We  take  the  liberty  to  uphold  and  de- 
fend our  sentiments,  whether  it  is  agreeable  or  not  to  the 
selfishness  of  the  slave-holder.  We  would  thankfully  receive 
any  communication  on  the  subject.  We  have  some  friends 
in  the  country  around,  among  whom  we  have  the  privilege 
of  distributing  without  fear  a  considerable  number  of 
pamphlets.  About  thirty  students  in  the  Theological  Sem- 
inary at  this  place  are  preparing  for  the  minstry,  of  whom 


p.  233. 

29Southern  History  Association  Publications,  II,  104. 
30The  Emancipator,  March  8,  1838,  p.  175. 
31Ibid.,  March  16,  1838,  p.  178. 


184  University^  of  Texas  Bulletin 

twelve  are  abolitionists."32  This  same  issue,  quoting  a  let- 
ter of  Mr.  R.  G.  Williams,  said:  "We  could  form  a  good 
Anti-slavery  Society  in  this  part  of  the  state,  but  we  choose 
to  work  in  an  unorganized  manner  a  while  yet,  before  we 
set  ourselves  up  as  a  target,  notwithstanding  the  strict  laws 
of  Tennessee.  We  meet  through  the  country  and  discuss 
the  merits  of  abolition  and  colonization  ;  the  former  is  ably 
defended  by  Rev.  T.  S.  Kendall,  pastor  of  the  Seceder 
Church  in  this  county  (Blount)r  and  several  others/'32 

The  most  eminent  anti-slavery  leader  in  the  state  was 
Elihu  Embree.  He  was  a  Quaker,  son  of  Thomas  and  Es- 
ther Embree,  of  Pennsylvania,  born  November  11,  1782. 
He  moved  to  Tennessee  at  an  early  age,  and  became  an  iron 
manufacturer  in  East  Tennessee.  He  early  espoused  the 
cause  of  freedom,  and  began  at  Jonesboro,  Tennessee,  in 
1819,  the  publication  of  the  Manumission  Intelligencer  as 
the  mouth-piece  of  the  manumission  societies  of  Tennessee. 
He  continued  this  publication  until  his  untimely  death  in 
1820. 

Embree  was  a  radical,  outspoken,  and  uncompromising 
abolitionist.  He  was  the  leader  of  the  Society  of  Friends 
in  their  work  for  abolition  in  Tennessee.  Embree's  writing 
and  lecturing  on  abolition  did  more  to  advertise  the  state  as 
an  abolition  center  in  the  twenties  than  the  work  of  all  the 
others  combined.  In  Garrison's  Life,  by  his  children,  there 
is  an  account  of  the  work  of  Embree,  "to  whom,"  it  says, 
"must  be  accorded  the  honor  of  publishing  the  first  period- 
ical in  America  of  which  the  one  avowed  object  was  oppo- 
sition to  slavery."33  Mr.  Embree  said  he  "spent  several 
thousand  dollars  ...  in  some  small  degree  abolishing,  and  in 
endeavoring  to  facilitate  the  general  abolition  of  slavery."34 

Embree  had  owned  seven  or  eight  slaves,  but  in  discuss- 
ing his  connection  with  slavery,  he  said  : 

I  repent  that  I  ever  owned  one.  And  indeed  the 
crime  is  of  such  a  hue,  that  the  time  may  yet  come, 
that  a  man  who  has,  in  a  single  instance,  gone 


Emancipator,  March  16,  1838,  p.  178. 
33Garrison's  Garrison,  I,  88. 
3*P.  of  V.  S.  H.  S.,  No.  2,  p.  8. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  185 

astray  thus  'far,  may  never  be  able  in  his  life  time 
to  regain  public  confidence ;  and  should  this  change 
of  public  sentiment  take  place  in  my  day,  and  ren- 
der me  disqualified  to  act  in  the  promotion  of  this 
glorious  cause,  I  hope  to  acquiesce  in,  and  be  re- 
signed to  suffer  the  just  judgment,  and  be  more 
humble  under  a  sense  of  my  past  misconduct; 
meanwhile  I  shall  doubtless  have  the  pleasure  of 
rejoicing  at  seeing  this  stigma  on  our  religious 
professions,  and  scar  upon  our  national  escutch- 
eon, eradicated  by  men  of  clean  hands.35 

III.    ABOLITION  LITERATURE. 

The  first  issue  of  the  Manumission  Intelligencer  was  pub- 
lished in  March,  1819,  at  Jonesboro,  Tennessee.  It  was  a 
weekly  at  first,  and,  in  this  form,  about  fifty  issues  were 
published,  eight  or  ten  copies  of  which  are  in  the  possession 
of  various  individuals  in  Washington  County.36  In  1820, 
Embree  changed  the  paper  to  a  monthly  octavo  and  called  it 
The  Emancipator. :u<  Due  to  Embree's  death,  December  12, 
1820,  The  Emancipator  was  forced  to  discontinue,  after  a 
very  prosperous  existence  of  eight  months,  during  which 
time  a  subscription  list  of  2000  had  been  secured.37  The 
numbers  issued  were  bound  in  one  volume  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty  pages,  a  copy  of  which  is  in  the  possession  of 
Esq.  Thomas  J.  Wilson,  who  married  Mr.  Embree's  daugh- 
ter. 

Embree  said  that  the  purpose  of  "This  paper  is  especially 
designed  by  the  editor  to  advocate  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
and  to  be  a  repository  of  tracts  on  that  interesting  and  im- 
portant subject.  It  will  contain  all  the  necessary  informa- 
tion that  the  editor  can  obtain  of  the  progress  of  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  of  the  descendants  of  Africa,  together  with  a 
concise  history  of  their  introduction  into  slavery,  collected 
from  the  best  authority."38 

3sp.  of  V.  S.  H.  S.,  No.  2,  p.  22. 
36Temple,  O.  P.,  p.  91. 

37Weeks,   S.  R.,   Southern   Quakers  and   Slavery,  p.  239;   see  also 
Martin,  A.  E.,  Tennessee  History  Magazine,  Vol.  I,  p.  267. 
,  E.  E.,  P.  of  V.  S.  H.  S.,  No.  2,  p.  7. 


186  University^  of  Texas  Bulletin 

Mr.  Embree,  in  discussing  the  progress  of  abolition  in 
Tennessee  and  his  publication,  said : 

Twenty  years  ago,  the  cause  of  abolition  was  so 
unpopular  in  Tennessee  that  it  was  at  the  risk  of  a 
man's  life  that  he  interfered  or  assisted  in  estab- 
lishing the  liberty  of  a  person  of  color  that  was 
held  in  slavery,  though  held  contrary  to  law.  The 
lives  of  some  of  my  intimate  acquaintances,  I  well 
recollect  to  have  been  threatened,  who  had  felt  it 
their  duty  to  aid  some  out  of  their  unlawful  thrall- 
dom.  And  it  was  sufficient  in  those  times  to  pro- 
cure a  man  the  general  hatred  of  his  neighbors, 
although  he  never  even  succeeded,  and  the  case 
made  plain  that  the  poor  negro  was  not  lawfully  a 
slave.  But  by  little  and  little,  times  are  much 
changed  here,  until  societies  of  respectable  citizens 
have  arisen  to  plead  the  cause  of  abolition ;  and  in- 
stead of  it  being  a  disgrace  to  a  man  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  these  societies,  it  is  rather  a  mark  of  the 
goodness  of  his  heart,  and  redounds  to  his  honor. 
I  have  no  hesitation  in  believing  that  less  than 
twenty  years  agq  a  man  would  have  been  mobbed, 
and  the  printing  office  torn  down  for  printing  and 
publishing  anything  like  the  Emancipator ;  where- 
as it  now  meets  the  approbation  of  thousands,  and 
is  patronized  perhaps  at  least  equal  to  any  other 
paper  in  the  State.39 

There  was  a  very  close  connection  between  Embree's  pub- 
lication and  those  of  Lundy  and  Garrison.  Lundy  was  a 
contributor  to  Osborn's  Philanthropist,  published  at  Mount- 
Pleasant,  Ohio,  and  made  two  trips  to  see  Osborn  about  be- 
coming connected  with  his  publication.  The  contest  over 
the  admission  of  Missouri  attracted  Lundy's  interest,  and 
before  this  matter  was  settled,  Osborn  had  sold  his  paper. 
Meanwhile,  Embree  had  established  at  Jonesboro,  Tennes- 
see, The  Emancipator.  Lundy  now  abandoned  the  idea  of 
an  anti-slavery  journal,  but,  on  learning  of  Embree's  death 
in  1820,  he  decided  that  the  anti-slavery  forces  must  have 
an  organ.  In  July,  1821,  at  Mount  Pleasant,  Ohio,  he  issued 
the  first  number  of  The  Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation. 

39S.  H.  A.  P.,  II,  p.  104. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  187 

Lindsay  Swift,  in  his  life  of  Garrison,  said :  "It  was  the  le- 
gitimate successor  in  spirit  of  Elihu  Embree's  Emancipator, 
Started  the  year  previous  in  Tennessee."40  Lundy  pub- 
lished only  eight  numbers  of  The  Genius  in  Ohio,  when  he 
was  persuaded  by  Embree's  friends  to  remove  The  Genius 
to  Tennessee  and  publish  it  on  Embree's  press.41  He,  ac- 
cordingly, bought  Embree's  press  and  the  subscription  list 
to  his  Emancipator,  and  published  The  Genius  in  Tennessee 
for  nearly  three  years.42  Lundy  in  a  letter,  dated  March  16, 
1823,  said:  "My  paper  circulates  well.  If  any  person  had 
told  me  when  I  commenced  that  I  should  be  as  successful 
under  all  my  disadvantages  as  I  have  been,  I  could  not  have 
believed  him."43 

Tennessee  is  really  the  mother  of  abolition  literature  in 
the  United  States.  She  was  the  original  home  of  The  Manu- 
mission Intelligencer  and  The  Emancipator,  became  the  seat 
of  The  Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation,  and  sent  out 
Osborn  who  established  The  Philanthropist  in  Ohio.  Of 
course,  Lundy  was  the  inspiration  of  Garrison,  who  decided 
to  establish  The  Liberator  after  his  association  with  Lundy, 
and  this  publication  is  just  as  truly  a  continuation  of  The 
Genius  as  it  was  the  prolonged  life  of  The  Emancipator.  In- 
stead of  assigning  first  place  to  the  work  of  Garrison,  as 
Johnson's  Life  of  Garrison,  Greeley's  History  of  American 
Conflict,  Wilson's  History  of  the  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave 
Power,  and  Von  Hoist's  Constitutional  and  Political  History 
of  the  United  States  do,  it  seems  that  this  pioneer  work  of 
Embree  really  made  possible  the  work  of  Lunday  and  Gar- 
rison. 

IV.    PETITIONS  TO  THE  LEGISATURE  FOR  ABOLITION. 

From  1815  to  1834,  the  legislature  was  constantly  peti- 
tioned by  the  abolitionists  of  the  state.  These  petitions 
prayed  for  easier  conditions  of  emancipation,  better  treat- 
ment of  slaves,  prevention  of  separation  of  husband  and 


40Swift,  Lindsay,  Life  of  Garrison,  p.  60. 

41Earl,  Thomas,  Life  of  Benjamin  Lundy,  pp.  16-20. 

42Temple,  p.  91. 

*3Earl,  p.  21. 


188  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

wife,  prohibition  of  the  entrance  of  slaves  into  the  state, 
and  some  plan  of  disestablishment  of  slavery.  The  Scrip- 
tures, the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  laws  of  na- 
ture were  usually  made  the  basis  of  these  petitions. 

In  1817,  one  of  the  most  suggestive  of  these  petitions  was 
presented.  This  petition  proposed  that  the  courts  be  em- 
powered in  granting  petitions  for  freedom  to  require  the 
master  to  "give  to  those  he  is  discharging  a  lease  on  lands 
for  years,  free  of  rent,  charge  and  taxes,  with  provisions 
adequate  for  the  first  year,  with  a  limited  portion  of  stock 
and  articles  of  husbandry."44  "For  years,"  it  states,  "we 
have  seen  monied  aristocracies  rising  in  our  land;  and 
wealth  attaching  reverence,  and  creating  distinction;  in 
proportion  as  these  evils  shall  increase,  will  men's  con- 
sciences be  seared  and  their  minds  turned  against  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  those,  who  constitute  an  essential  part  of 
their  wealth."  It  also  called  attention  to  the  need  for  addi- 
tional protection  for  free  negroes,  and  suggested  that  it  be 
made  a  felony  to  steal  and  sell  a  free  negro  into  slavery. 
It  also  pointed  out  that  the  young  free  negroes  with  neither 
father  nor  mother  alive  or  free  should  be  attached  to  suit- 
able persons,  preferably  their  emancipators,  to  be  "reared 
to  habits  of  industry,  and  prepared  for  the  duties  of  life."45 
This  petition  was  signed  by  eighty-eight  citizens,  among 
whom  was  Jno.  H.  Eaton,  later  Andrew  Jackson's  Secretary 
of  War. 

In  1815,  there  was  a  petition  presented  to  the  legislature, 
signed  by  four  hundred  and  four  citizens,  of  whom  twenty- 
two  were  slaveholders,  asking  that  a  general  plan  for  dis- 
establishing slavery  be  enacted.46  There  were  thirty-six 
petitions,  signed  by  2153  persons,  presented  to  the  legisla- 
ture in  1817,46  and  twenty-one  petitions  signed  by  2253  per- 
sons in  1819.47  The  Manumission  Society  of  Tennessee  pre- 
sented a  petition  to  the  legislature  in  1819,  asking  that  the 

44Petitions  of  1817,  State  Archives. 
45Petitions  of  1815,  State  Archives. 
46Petitions  of  1817,  State  Archives. 
47Petitions  of  1819,  State  Archives. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  189 

children  of  slaves  be  emancipated  at  a  certain  age,  that 
slaves  capable  of  supporting  themselves  be  manumitted 
without  the  assumption  of  heavy  obligations  by  their  mas- 
ters, and  that  the  "inhuman  and  barbarous  practice  of  trad- 
ing in  slaves  be  prohibited." 

These  petitions  became  more  numerous  in  the  later  twen- 
ties. In  1825,  there  were  497  petitions  presented  to  the 
legislature;  in  1827,  there  were  2818,  and  1328  in  1829. 
These  petitions  were  signed  by  hundreds.  In  addition  to 
these  circulated  petitions,  there  were  many  individual  re- 
quests for  the  permission  to  emancipate  entire  families 
without  security,  or  with  permission  for  the  negroes  to  re- 
main in  the  state. 

V.    ABOLITION  IN  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1834. 

"It  is  supposed,"  said  the  Nashville  Republican,  February 
20,  1834,  "that  efforts  will  be  made  to  insert  a  provision  for 
the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery,  and  perhaps  the  coloniza- 
tion of  our  colored  population.  Upon  the  propriety  of  this 
step  we  shall  not  at  present  decide,  Much  would  depend 
upon  the  nature  of  the  provision,  whether  well  adapted  to 
our  present  and  future  condition.  The  legislature  of  Ten- 
nessee has  already  taken  up  the  cause  of  colonization,  and 
made,  perhaps,  as  liberal  provision  for  it  as  our  finances 
permitted.  The  nature  of  things,  the  march  of  public  opin- 
ion, the  voice  of  religion,  all  have  said  that  American  slav- 
ery must  have  an  end.  What  shall  be  the  legislative  meas- 
ures to  that  effect,  and  where  they  shall  begin,  are  ques- 
tions for  prudence  to  determine."48 

In  accordance  with  this  prophecy,  as  soon  as  the  conven- 
tion was  organized,  petitions  were  presented,  proposing 
the  following  amendment  to  the  constitution : 

All  slaves  born  within  the  limits  of  the  state  of 
Tennessee  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  January, 
1835,  shall  be  free,  together  with  their  issue,  upon 
the  said  slaves,  so  born,  as  aforesaid,  arriving  at 
the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  and  upon  condition 
that  within  one  year  after  their  so  arriving  at  the 

48The  Nashville  Republican,  February  20,  1834. 


190  University-  of  Texas  Bulletin 

age  of  twenty-one  years,  they,  together  with  their 
issue,  remove  without  the  limits  of  the  state  of 
Tennessee,  and  never  return  to  reside  therein — 
and  that  any  slave  or  slaves  who  reside  without 
the  limits  of  thei  state  of  Tennessee,  on  or  after 
the  first  day  of  January,  1835,  and  who  may  after- 
wards be  brought  within  the  limit  of  the  said  state 
to  reside,  or  who  remain  within  the  said  limits  for 
a  term  of  more  than  sixty  days  under  any  pre- 
tence whatever,  such  slave  or  slaves  shall  be  free, 
and  all  slaves  who  shall  have  attained  the  said  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  and  who  shall  not  have  re- 
moved without  the  limits  of  said  state  within  12 
months  thereafter,  shall  be  hired  out  by  some  au- 
thority, prescribed  by  the  legislature  for  one,  two, 
or  three  years,  and  the  proceeds  of  their  labor,  ap- 
propriated for  defraying  the  expense  of  removing 
them  to  Liberia,  in  Africa,  or  to  such  places  with- 
out the  limits  of  the  United  States  as  may  be  con- 
sidered suitable  for  their  reception,  and  for  pro- 
viding for  their  substance  for  twelve  months  after 
their  arrival  at  their  new  home.49 

The  convention,  despite  the  efforts  of  a  determined  mi- 
nority, well  backed  by  its  constituency,  steadily  refused  to 
consider  these  memorials  on  slavery.  They  were  at  first 
merely  read  and  laid  on  the  table.  On  May  30,  Mr.  Stephen- 
son,  of  Washington  County,  moved  the  appointment  of  a 
committee  of  thirteen,  one  from  each  congressional  district, 
to  whom  the  memorials  should  be  referred,  and  who  should 
report  to  the  convention  a  plan  for  the  disestablishment  of 
slavery.  This  motion  was  lost  on  June  2.50  June  6,  Mr. 
Allen,  of  Sumner  County,  moved  the  appointment  of  a  com- 
mittee of  three,  one  from  each  division  of  the  state,  to  draft 
resolutions,  giving  reasons  why  the  convention  refused  to 
consider  the  petitions  of  the  memorialists.  After  vain  at- 
tempts to  amend  the  motion,  it  prevailed.  The  president  of 
the  convention  appointed  a  committee  of  three,  consisting 
of  Messrs.  Allen,  John  A.  McKinney,  and  Huntsman.51  Mr. 
Fogg  of  Davidson  County,  was  substituted  on  the  commit- 

49Petitions  of  1834,  State  Archives. 
50Journal  of  the  Convention,  p.  72. 
51Ibid.,  p.  89. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  191 

tee  for  Mr.  Allen,  and  Mr.  McKinney  was  made  chairman. 
On  motion  of  Mr.  McKinney,  the  memorial  on  slavery  was 
turned  over  to  the  committee. 

June  19,  the  committee  reported  through  its  chairman, 
Mr,  John  A.  McKinney.  The  report  is  very  clever  in  its 
arguments  and  significant  for  its  admissions  and  profes- 
sions. It  was  really  a  polite  apology  for  slavery.  It  gave 
the  following  as  the  main  reasons  that  the  convention  re- 
fused to  consider  the  memorials  on  slavery : 

1.  That  if  Tennessee  were  to  say  that  the  chil- 
dren of  all  slaves  born  after  a  specified  time  would 
become  free  at  a  certain  age,  it  would  mean  either 
that  these  slaves  would  be  sold  to  other  slave  states 
before  they  became  free,  or  that  their  masters 
would  go  there  with  them.52 

2.  That  such  congregating  of  slaves  would  ag- 
gravate their  situation  and  tend  toward  a  servile 
war.53 

3.  "That  in  Tennessee,  slaves  are  treated  with 
as  much  humanity  as  in  any  part  of  the  world, 
where  slavery  exists.    Here  they  are  well  clothed 
and  fed,  and  the  labor  they  have  to  perform  is  not 
grievous  nor  burdensome."54 

4.  That  the  slaves  of  Tennessee  do  not  want  to 
leave  the  state  and  that,  if  their  wishes  are  re- 
spected, the  prayers  of  the  memorialists  will  not  be 
granted. 

This  report  admits  that  slavery  is  a  great  evil  and  utters 
the  following  prophecy  of  its  abolition:  "The  ministers  of 
our  holy  religion  will  knock  at  the  door  of  the  hearts  of  the 
owners  of  slaves,  telling  every  one  of  them  to  let  his  bonds- 
man and  his  bondswoman  go  free,  and  to  send  them  back 
to  the  land  of  their  forefathers,  and  the  voice  of  these  holy 
men  will  be  heard  and  obeyed,  and  even  those  who  lend  a 
deaf  ear  to  the  admonitions  in  the  hour  of  death,  will,  on  a 
bed  of  sickness  and  at  the  approach  of  death,  make  provi- 
sion for  the  emancipation  of  their  slaves,  and  for  their 


52Journal  of  the  Convention,  p.  89. 
53Ibid.,  p.  90. 
p.  91. 


192  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

transportation  to  their  home  on  the  coast  of  Africa."55 
This  report  was  adopted  by  the  convention  by  a  vote  of  44 
to  10. 

Mathew  Stephenson,  of  Washington  County,  supported 
by  John  McGoughey,  Richard  Bradshaw,  and  James  Gil- 
lespey,  prepared  a  protest  to  the  committee's  report  in  which 
they  said : 

We  believe  that  the  importance  of  the  subject, 
deeply  involving  the  interest  and  safety  of  the 
State,  both  in  a  political  and  moral  point  of  view, 
together  with  the  number  and  respectability  of  the 
memorialists,  merited  from  this  convention  a  more 
respectful  notice  and  consideration,  than  merely 
to  appoint  a  committee  of  three,  with  instructions 
to  give  reasons  why  the  convention  would  not  take 
up  and  consider  the  matter.56 

This  protest  from  members  of  the  Convention  was  sup- 
ported by  petitions  from  the  anti-slavery  forces  in  the  state. 
A  petition  from  the  citizens  of  Jefferson  called  attention  to 
some  of  the  weaknesses  of  the  report  of  the  committee  of 
three,  such  as  the  admission  of  the  great  evil  of  slavery,  its 
subversiveness  of  republican  institutions,  the  selling  of 
slaves  to  the  more  southern  slave-holding  states,  the  pitiable 
condition  of  the  free  negroes,  which  was  equally  applicable 
to  white  men,  and  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  that  Tennes- 
see would  ever  be  more  favorable  to  emancipation. 

The  protest  of  this  committee,  re-enforced  by  these  "loud 
and  reiterated  calls,  for  at  least  some  prospective  relief  from 
the  evils"  of  slavery,  persuaded  the  convention  to  make  a 
more  detailed  analysis  of  the  memorials  of  slavery  in  order 
to  make  its  position  clear  to  the  people  of  the  state.  On 
July  9,  a  motion  was  adopted  to  re-commit  the  memorials 
on  slavery  to  the  committee  of  three  for  a  second  report. 

The  second  report  of  the  Committee  of  three  showed  that 
there  were  1804  signatures  to  the  memorials  and  that  only 
105  of  these  were  designated  as  slave-holders."  The  report 

r>r> Journal  of  the  Convention,  p.  93. 
seibid.,  p.  102. 
"Ibid.,  p.  125. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  193 

admitted  that  there  might  be  some  signatures  of  slave-hold- 
ers not  so  designated,  but  that  such  a  number  was  likely  in- 
considerable. The  report  showed  that  the  slave-holding  pe- 
titioners did  not  represent  the  "owners  of  five  hundred 
slaves,  and  probably  not  of  half  that  number,58  while  the 
owners  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  slaves  were  un- 
represented by  the  memorialists. 

The  memorialists  represented  the  counties  of  Washington, 
Greene,  Jefferson,  Cocke,  Sevier,  Blount,  McMinn,  Monroe, 
Knox,  Rhea,  Roane,  Overton,  Bedford,  Lincoln,  Maury,  and 
Robertson,  distributed  as  follows :  two  hundred  and  seventy- 
three  in  Washington;  three  hundred  and  seventy-eight  in 
Greene;  thirty-three  in  Maury;  sixty-seven  in  Overton; 
twenty-four  in  Robertson ;  one  hundred  and  five  in  Lincoln ; 
one  hundred  and  thirty-nine  in  Bedford ;  and  smaller  num- 
bers in  the  other  nine  counties  from  which  the  petitions 
were  presented.58  The  number  of  memorialists  was  rather 
small  as  compared  with  the  five  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
population  of  the  state,  and  was  almost  entirely  unrepre- 
sentative of  the  slavocracy  of  the  state. 

The  committee  further  showed  that  almost  all  the  pe- 
titions presented  a  plan  of  emancipation.  About  one-half 
of  the  memorialists  asked  that  all  slave  children  born  after 
1835  be  made  free,  and  that  all  slaves  in  the  state  be  made 
free  by  1855.  They  asked  that  all  negroes  be  sent  out  of 
the  state.  The  other  memorials  asked  that  all  the  slaves 
be  emancipated  by  1866  and  colonized. 

The  committee  thought,  "to  assert  that  the  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  slaves  now  in  this  state,  together  with  their 
increase,  could  be  emanicpated  and  colonized  in  the  short 
term  of  twenty-one  or  even  thirty-two  years,  with  the  aid  of 
means  at  the  command  of  the  State,  is  a  proposition  so  full 
of  absurdity,  that  no  person  in  his  sober  senses,  who  had 
taken  any  time  to  reffect  on  the  subject,  would  possibly 
maintain."59 

58Journal'  of  the  Convention,  p.  126. 
59lbid.,  p.  127. 


194  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

This  report  was  followed  by  another  protest,  July  21, 
made  by  a  committee  consisting  of  Mathew  Steplienson, 
Richard  Bradshaw,  and  John  McGoughey,!  to  the  effect  that 
the  memorialists  were  not  fairly  treated  by  the  convention, 
and  that  the  committee  of  three  rather  labored  in  its  report 
to  ridicule  their  petitions  instead  of  answering  them  by  pro- 
posing some  constructive  plan  of  abolition. 

Mr.  Joseph  Kincaid  protested  against  the  reference  made 
in  the  second  report  of  the  committee  to  the  free  negro. 
The  report  stated  that,  "Unenviable  as  is  the  condition  of  the 
slave,unlovely  as  is  slavery  in  all  its  aspects,  bitter  as  the 
draught  may  be  that  the  slave  is  doomed  to  drink,  never- 
theless, his  condition  is  better  than  the  condition  of  the  free 
man  of  color,  in  the  midst  of  a  community  of  white  men 
with  whom  he  has  no  common  interest,  no  fellow-feeling, 
no  equality."60  "From  the  above  conclusions,  which  the 
committee  arrived  at  in  their  report,  it  would  seem,"  said 
Mr.  Kincaid,  "that  they  hold  slavery  to  be  a  more  enviable 
situation,  than  that  of  freedom  under  the  above  circum- 
stances :  Therefore,  it  would  seem  to  follow,  that  those  col- 
ored people,  who  are  now  free,  should  be  subjected  to  slav- 
ery, in  order  to  better  their  condition — and  that  slavery 
should  be  rendered  perpetual."61 

Despite  the  persistent  efforts  of  a  small  though  respect- 
able minority  in  behalf  of  abolition,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the 
convention  at  any  stage  of  its  proceedings  evinced  any  pro- 
nounced anti-slavery  attitude.  It  was  more  anti-negro  than 
anti-slavery.  It  deplored  the  existence  of  slavery,  and  in- 
dicated that  in  the  course  of  time  colonization  might  elim- 
inate slavery.  In  anticipation  of  a  possible  conpensated 
emancipation,  the  convention  inserted  a  clause  in  the  consti- 
tution by  k  vote  of  30  to  27,  forbidding  the  legislature  to 
abolish  slavery  without  the  consent  of  the  owners  and  with- 
out paying  them  a  money  equivalent  for  the  slaves  eman- 
cipated.62 It  was  later  attempted  to  place  a  constitutional 


60Journal  of  the  Convention,  p.  89. 
"Ibid.,  p.  225. 

oalbid.,  p.  201;  Constitution  of  1834,  Art.  II,  Sec.  31. 
Sec.  31. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  195 

prohibition  on  compensated  emancipation,  but  it  failed  by 

a  vote  of  3  to  20.(i2 

VI.    ABOLITION  SENTIMENT  AFTER  1834. 

There  continued  to  be  anti-slavery  forces  in  the  state  as 
long  as  slavery  existed.  In  1835,  there  was  organized  at 
Rock  Creek,  in  East  Tennessee,  an  abolition  society  that  ad- 
vocated immediate  abolition.  It  was  one  of  three  aboli- 
tion societies  at  this  time  in  the  entire  South,  the  other  two 
being  in  Virginia  and  Kentucky.  This  society  lasted  only 
two  years.63  In  1836,  fifty-five  citizens  of  Rhea  County 
sent  a  petition  to  the  legislature,  protesting  against  a  law 
that  the  legislature  had  passed  making  it  a  penitentiary  of- 
fence to  receive  abolition  literature.  This  protest  states, 
"that  said  law  is  too  bloody,  too  tyrannical  and  too  despotic 
to  govern  a  free  people  which  we  profess  to  be  in  practice 
and  should  be  in  theory."  The  petitioners  further  state 
that  they  are  "opposed  to  the  manner  in  which  such  law 
has  curtailed  our  most  sacred  privileges,  the  free  commu- 
nication of  thought  upon  any  subject  provided  we  tell  the 
truth/'64  The  Maryville  Intelligencer,  issued  at  the  seat 
of  Maryville  College,  published  reports  of  the  synods  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  yet  the  editor  remarked  that  "this 
publication,  we  must  remember,  is  after  a  law  making  it 
penal  in  Tennessee  to  receive  any  anti-slavery  paper  or 
pamphlet,  yes,  making  it  a  penitentiary  offense  to  receive 
this  very  report  of  the  Kentucky  Synod."05  Hon.  John  M. 
Lea  made  one  of  the  last  anti-slavery  addresses  in  Tennessee 
before  the  Apprentices'  Union  at  Nashville  in  1841. °6  In 
1849,  the  Jonesboro  Whig  said :  "In  Tennessee,  the  residence 
of  James  K.  Polk,  especially  in  East  Tennessee,  anti-slavery 
sentiments  are  strong  and  decided."67  The  Knoxville  Trib- 
une at  this  same  time  was  publishing  a'  series  of  papers  on 


63The  Liberator,  July  25,  1835;  American  Anti-Slavery  Almanac, 
December,  1836,  p.  47. 

64Petitions  of  1836,  State  Archives. 

65Quarterly  Anti-slavery  Magazine,  II,  364. 

^Hale  and  Merritt,  II,  300. 

67Ninth  Annual  Report  of  American  and  Foreign  Anti-slavery  So- 
ciety, 1849,  p.  52. 


196  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

abolition,  advocating  the  calling  of  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion to  amend  the  constitution  to  "open  the  way  for  the  full 
and  final  redemption  of  the1  state."67 

A  correspondent  from  Tennessee  in  the  New  York  Ob- 
server, writing  on  abolition  in  the  state,  said  in  1849  : 

The  question  is  being  a  good  deal  agitated,  and 
fully  discussed.  Many  who  own  slaves  oppose  the 
institution,  and  non-slaveholders  almost  to  a  man. 
In  my  neighborhood  of  some  five  miles  square, 
there  are  about  eighty  families,  and  a  number  of 
them  own  slaves,  and  there  is  but  one  advocate  of 
slavery.  A  slaveholder  said,  "It  is  of  no  use  to 
avoid  the  question  any  longer.  The  sooner  it  is 
settled  the  better,  for  God  has  declared  that  right 
shall  prevail,  and  slavery  must  end."  Another  in- 
dividual who  occupies  a  high  station  in  society  said, 
"Agitate  the  question  and  anti-slavery  will  pre- 
vail." I  might  produce  hundreds,  yes,  thousands 
of  expressions  of  opinion  equally  strong  and  de- 
cisive. The  great  difficulty  seems  to  be  as  to  the 
means  of  getting  rid)  of  the  evil.68 

While  there  was  this  anti-slavery  minority  expressing 
itself  in  an  intermittent  way  after  1834,  the  great  majority 
of  the  state  was  thoroughly  pro-slavery.  In  1835,  Rev. 
Amos  Dresser,  an  active  member  of  the  Abolition  Society 
of  Ohio,  was  arrested  in  Nashville  for  publishing  and  cir- 
culating pamphlets  among  the  slaves  to  incite  them  to  in- 
surrection. The  Committee  of  Vigilance  and  Safety,  con- 
sisting of  sixty-two  citizens,  tried  him  and  found  him  guilty. 
He  was  sentenced  to  receive  twenty  stripes  on  his  bare 
back  and  to  leave  the  city  within  twenty-four  hours.  He 
received  the  flogging,  and  did  not  wait  for  the  expiration 
of  the  twenty-four  hours.69 

Public  meetings  were  generally  held,  denouncing  such 
insurrectionists  and  their  accomplices.  It  was  reported 
that  Arthur  Tappan  and  others  of  New  York  City  had  fur- 
nished funds  to  aid  the  circulation  of  abolition  literature 


and  Merritt,  II,  299. 
69Ibid.,  p.  300. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  197 

in  the  state.70  At  one  of  these  meetings  held  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Vigilance  and  Safety,  the  merchants  of  Tennessee 
were  requested  to  boycott  Arthur  Tappan  and  Company  and 
all  other  abolitionists.  These  incidents  were  largely  re- 
sponsible for  the  Act  of  1836  mentioned  above  and  the  Gag 
Kesolution  in  Andrew  Jackson's  administration.  In  the 
debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  Calhoun  Resolution,  both  of  the 
senators  from  Tennessee,  Hugh  Lawson  White  and  Felix 
Grundy,  defended  the  flogging  of  Rev.  Dresser.  Senator 
Grundy  advocated  a  "summary  disposal  of  such  abolition- 
ists."70 

Tennessee  was  never  a  unit  on  the  slavery  question.  There 
were  scattered  groups  of  abolitionists  throughout  the  state 
as  long  as  slavery  existed,  while  East  Tennessee  was  almost 
solidly  anti-slavery.  The  contest  over  slavery  in  the  con- 
vention of  1834,  in  the  churches,  and  in  politics  created  di- 
visions among  the  people  of  the  state  that  have  had  a  per- 
manent influence  upon  the  life  of  the  state. 

It  is  singularly  true,  however,  that  Tennessee  did  finally 
abolish  slavery  by  popular  vote.  She  was  the  only  one  of 
the  Confederate  States  that  was  excepted  from  President 
Lincoln's  Emancipation  Proclamation  of  1863ri  and  that 
abolished  slavery  by  its  own  act.  There  was  an  attempt 
to  hold  a  convention  of  Union  men  in  Nashville  in  the  fall 
of  1864,  but  the  Confederate  army  in  the  vicinity  of  Nash- 
ville made  it  unsafe  for  the  convention  to  meet.  It  did  meet 
January  8,  1865,  and  on  the  ninth  recommended  that  Article 
II,  Section  31,  of  the  Constitution  of  1834,  to  the  effect  that 
"the  General  Assembly  shall  have  no  power  to  pass  laws 
for  the  emancipation  of  slaves  without  the  consent  of  their 
owner  or  owners,"  be  abrogated  and  that  slavery  be  abol- 
ished forever,  and  the  legislature  be  forbidden  to  re-establish 
property  in  man.  These  proposed  constitutional  changes 
were  submitted  to  popular  vote  of  the  Union  men,  February 

70Fifth  Annual  Report  of  American  Anti-slavery  Society,  1838, 
pp.  72-73. 

71Andrews  v.  Page,  3  Heiskell,  658  (1870). 


198  University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 

22,  1865,  and  Andrew  Johnson  as  military  governor  of 
Tennessee  announced  that  the  amendments  had  been  adopted 
and  that  "the  shackles  have  been  formally  stricken  from 
the  limbs  of  more  than  275,000  slaves  in  the  state."72 

"The  amended  constitution  of  the  State  of  Tennessee 
adopted  on  the  22nd  of  February,  1865,"  said  Judge  Shack- 
elford  in  1865,  "prohibits  slavery  or  voluntary  servitude, 
in  the  State  of  Tennessee,  and  it  has  forever  ceased  to  ex- 
ist."73 It  is  clear,  then,  that  his  amendment  was  not  the 
ratification  of  President  Lincoln's  Proclamation,  which  did 
not  apply  to  Tennessee,  but  was  itself  the  act  of  emancipa- 
tion by  which  the  slaves  of  Tennessee  ceased  to  be  property 
and  became  free  men. 


•'Acts  of  1865,  pp.  IX-XIII. 

73Nelson  v.  Smithfeter,  2  Caldwell,  14  (1865).  See  also  Graves  v. 
Keaton,  3  Caldwell,  14  (1866) ;  Wharton  v.  The  State,  5  Caldwell,  3 
(1867);  Bedford  v.  Williams,  3  Caldwell,  210  (1867). 


CHAPTER  VIII 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  periods  in  the  development  of  slavery  in  Tennessee 
are  rather  well  defined.  The  institution  made  no  remark- 
able progress  before  1790.  Its  growth  was  slow  and  grad- 
ual. There  were  no  special  forces  contributing  to  its  de- 
velopment. Only  the  mountainous  part  of  the  state  was 
being  settled,  and  the  cotton  industry  had  not  developed. 
The  pioneers  were  not  in  thought  or  manner  of  living  favor- 
able to  slavery.  They  either  did  their  work  single-handed, 
or  combined  with  their  neighbors  in  the  performance  of  the 
heavier  phases  of  it.  Slavery  was  not  a  controlling  factor, 
in  a  pioneer  life  characterized  largely  by  hunting,  fishing, 
trading,  and  small  farming.  It  was  more  or  less  a  useless 
luxury,  which  only  the  more  fortunately  situated  could  af- 
ford. Whatever  progress  slavery  made  during  this  period 
was  due  to  purely  natural  forces  and  conditions.  There 
were  only  3,417  slaves  in  the  state  in  1790,  and  their  value 
was  less  than  $100  each. 

From  1790  to  1835,  slavery  expanded  very  rapidly.  In 
the  first  decade  of  this  period,  the  slave  population  in- 
creased 297.54  per  cent;  in  the  second,  227.84  per  cent;  in 
the  third,  79.87  per  cent ;  and  in  the  fourth,  76.76  per  cent. 
There  were  183,059  slaves  in  the  state  in  1840.  Frontier 
conditions  were  largely  supplanted  by  a  more  prosperous 
society.  Cotton  became  the  chief  agricultural  product  of 
the  state.  West  Tennessee,  the  part  of  the  state  especially 
adapted  to  the  production  of  cotton,  was  settled  during  this 
period.  Tobacco  was  profitably  grown  in  Middle  Tennes- 
see, with  the  aid  of  slave  labor.  The  river  valleys  of  East 
Tennessee  became  cotton  producing  areas.  Slavery  in  this 
period  proved  to  be  a  profitable  labor  system  in  by  far  the 
larger  portion  of  the  state.  This  period  is  especially  char- 
acterized by  the  growing  economic  importance  of  slavery 
and  the  weakening  of  the  abolition  sentiment.  The  slave 
was  worth  about  $550  in  1835.  The  state  reversed  its 


200  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

policy  toward  the  free  negro  in  1831,  disfranchised  him  in 
1834,  and  refused  in  the  convention  of  1834  even  to  con- 
sider abolition. 

From  1835  to  1855,  there  was  practically  one  opinion  in 
the  state  on  the  slavery  question.  There  was  a  dissenting 
minority,  but  it  was  so  inconsiderable  as  to  be  almost  neg- 
ligible. The  prevailing  opinion  was  that  abolition  was  im- 
practicable. The  slaves  were  not  regarded  as  being  able 
to  sustain  themselves.  They  were  not  prepared  for  the 
duties  of  citizenship.  The  state  was  not  financially  able  to 
purchase  them  and  colonize  them.  It  was  held  that  any 
policy  the  state  might  adopt  would  in  its  execution  require 
the  cooperation  of  the  other  slaveholding  states.  The  more 
seriously  the  problem  was  attacked,  the  larger  the  propor- 
tions which  it  assumed.  Slavery  appeared  from  every  angle 
to  be  a  permanent  institution.  This  conclusion  led  to  a 
policy  of  safeguarding  its  interests,  and  improving  the  con- 
dition of  the  slaves.  Legislation  restricting  emancipation, 
preventing  influx  of  free  negroes,  and  establishing  volun- 
tary enslavement  was  enacted.  The  change  in  the  attitude 
of  the  churches  during  this  period  enabled  them  to  have 
more  influence  over  the  slaveholders  and  to  establish  closer 
relations  with  the  slaves.  The  churches  constantly  insisted 
upon  a  humane  treatment  of  the  slaves. 

There  are  several  outstanding  features  of  Tennessee  slav- 
ery that  deserve  special  emphasis.  The  state,  until  the 
early  thirties,  may  be  ranked  along  with  Ohio  and  New 
England  as  an  abolition  center.  Tennessee  had  more  aboli- 
tion societies  in  1825  than  any  other  state  in  the  Union  ex- 
cept North  Carolina.  In  1840,  there  were  5,524  free  ne- 
groes in  the  state.  Maryville  College,  at  Maryville,  Ten- 
nessee, was  a  center  of  abolition  propaganda.  Union  Uni- 
versity, at  Murfreesboro,  Tennessee,  numbered  active  abo- 
litionists in  its  faculty.  The  state  was  the  birth-place  of 
the  first  out-right  abolition  paper  published  in  the  United 
States,  and  it  became  the  connecting-link  between  Lundy 
and  Garrison.  The  state  sent  a  number  of  anti-slavery 
leaders  into  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois.  The  Tennessee 
churches  were  uniformly  anti-slavery  until  they  saw  they 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  201 

were  losing  their  membership  and  were  being  ostracized 
from  the  proper  contact  with  the  slaves.  As  long  as  slavery 
existed  in  the  state,  manumission  continued,  despite  legal 
restriction,  as  an  expression  of  an  active  anti-slavery  sen- 
timent. 

The  slave's  legal  status  in  Tennessee  was  exceptionably 
favorable.  The  law  guaranteed  to  him  shelter,  food,  cloth- 
ing, and  medical  attention.  It  protected  him  against  the 
violence  of  his  master  and  of  society.  It  prevented  avari- 
cious masters  from  emancipating  him  when  he  ceased  to  be 
productive  and  gave  him  the  right  to  institute  suit  for  his 
freedom.  It  permitted  him  to  contract  for  his  freedom 
against  administrators  of  estates  who  were  seeking  to  hold 
him  in  slavery.  It  furnished  free  counsel  for  his  defense 
when  his  interests  were  in  jeopardy.  It  also  gave  him  trial 
by  the  same  jury  that  the  white  man  had. 

The  patrol  system  was  an  elaborate  system  of  govern- 
ment for  a  non-citizen  class.  •  It  was,  however,  a  govern- 
ment of  law.  Its  administrative  agents  included  searchers, 
patrols,  magistrates,  sheriffs,  constables,  masters  and  mis- 
tresses. Every  citizen  was  subject  to  patrol  duty.  These 
agents  enforced  a  code  that  reduced  almost  every  activity 
and  relation  of  the  slave  to  a  basis  of  law.  The  patrol  sys- 
tem was  characterized  by  a  careful  consideration  of  the 
slave's  weaknesses  and,  with  its  patriarchal  supervision, 
gave  him  a  respect  for  authority  that  partially  prepared 
him  to  be  a  citizen  in  a  government  of  law.  It  is  singularly 
true  that  Tennessee  negroes  today  enjoy  a  greater  participa- 
tion in  politics  than  any  other  Southern  negroes.  The 
background  for  this  status  and  friendly  attitude  is  to  be 
found  in  the  ante-bellum  politics  of  the  state. 

The  finest  expression  of  Tennessee's  attitude  toward  the 
negro  slave  is  found  in  the  genuinely  humane  treatment  ac- 
corded him.  He  was  well  fed,  clothed,  and  housed.  The 
evils  of  the  absentee  landlord  system  with  its  overseer  and 
slave-driver  were  never  prevalent.  The  small  farmer  was 
considerate  of  his  welfare.  The  churches  constantly  sought 
to  improve  his  condition.  They  reached  him  indirectly 
through,  their  services.  Their  influence  manifested  itself 


202  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

in  charity,  in  marriage  ceremonies,  at  the  sick-bed,  in  man- 
umission societies,  in  the  halls  of  legislation,  and  in  the  be- 
nevolent philosophy  of  the  Christian  judge.  Efforts  at 
harsh  legislation  were  either  defeated  at  the  time  or  mod- 
ified later  by  more  considered  enactments.  It  has  been 
abundantly  shown,  however,  that  it  was  the  courts  of  Ten- 
nessee that  constituted  the  bulwark  of  protection  for  the 
slave.  They  dealt  with  him  not  as  a  chattel  but  as  a  man. 
The  slave  code  became  in  their  hands  an  opportunity  and  a 
means  to  humanize  the  institution.  They  could  not  annul 
the  law  of  slavery,  but  they  did  largely  abolish  it  in  fact  by 
their  interpretation  of  it. 

The  condition  of  the  free  negro  was  never  promising.  He 
was  largely  always  subject  to  certain  legal  restrictions. 
The  system  of  registration  adopted  in  1806,  the  exclusion  act 
of  1831,  and  his  disfranchisement  in  1834  were  expressions 
of  an  increasing  hostility  toward  him.  He  was  always  a 
possible  avenue  through  which  the  abolitionists  might  reach 
the  slave.  This  made  him  a  menace  to  society.  His  asso- 
ciation, therefore,  with  slaves  was  forbidden  by  law.  He 
was  practically  a  social  outcast.  The  slaves  regarded  him 
as  worthless.  Finally,  provision  was  made  for  his  re-en- 
slavement. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 
A.  Sources. 

I.  Records. 

1.  Colonial  Papers  1661. 

2.  Colonial  Entry  Book  No.  73. 

3.  Colonial  Records  of  North  Carolina,  I-X  (1662-1776). 

4.  State   Records   of   North   Carolina,   XI-XXVI    (1776- 

1790). 

6.  Journal  of  the  Legislative  Council  of  the  Southwest 
Territory   (1794-1796). 

6.  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  South- 

west Territory   (1794-1795). 

7.  Annals  of  Congress,  17th  Congress,  1st  Session. 

8.  Annals  of  Tennessee,  Ramsey,  J.  G.  M.,  Philadelphia, 

1860. 

9.  Whig  Almanac  for  the  years  1836,  1844,  and  1848. 

10.  American  Anti-slavery  Almanac  for  1836. 

11.  Congressional  Globe,  1st  Session,  33rd  Congress;  and 

2nd  Session,  38th  Congress. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  203 

II.  Documents. 

1.  The  Constitution  of  North  Carolina,  1776. 

2.  The  Constitution  of  Franklin,  1785. 

3.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  1787. 

4.  The  Constitution  of  Kentucky,  1799. 

5.  The  Constitution  of  Tennessee,  1796. 

6.  The  Constitution  of  Tennessee,  1834. 

7.  The  Constitution  of  Tennessee,  1870. 

8.  Thorpe,  Francis  Newton,  Federal  and  State  Constitu- 

tions, 7  vols.,  Washington,  1909. 

9.  MacDonald,  William,   Select  Charters  Illustrative  of 

American  History,  New  York,  1904. 

10.  United  States  Census  of  1850,  I,  Population. 

11.  Statistical  Abstract  of  United  States,  1906. 

12.  United   States   Statutes  at  Large,  I. 

13.  United  States  Census  of  1870,  I,  Population. 

14.  Colonial  and  State  Statutes  of  North  Carolina,  Colo- 

nial Records,  Vols.  XXIII-XXV   (1715-1790). 

15.  Statutes  of  the  Southwest  Territory,  1790-1795. 

16.  Acts  of  Tennessee. 

a.  Public  Acts. 

1st  Sess.  (1799),  1st  Sess.  (1801),  1st  Sess. 
(1803),  1st  Sess.  (1806),  1st  Sess.  (1807),  1st 
Sess.  (1813),  1st  Sess.  (1815),  1st  Sess.  (1817), 
1st  Sess.  (1819),  1st  Sess.  (1821),  1st  Sess. 
(1823),  1st  Sess.  (1825),  Extra  Sess.  (1826), 
1st  Sess.  (1827),  1st  Sess.  (1829),  1st  Sess. 
(1831),  1st  Sess.  (1832),  1st  Sess.  (1833),  1st 
Sess.  (1835-6),  1st  Sess.  (1837-8),  1st  Sess. 
(1839),  1st  Sess.  (1839),  1st  Sess.  (1842),  1st 
Sess.  (1843-4),  1st  Sess.  (1846),  1st  Sess.  (1847- 
8),  1st  Sess.  (1849-50),  1st  Sess.  (1851-2),  1st 
Sess.  (1853-4),  1st  Sess.  (1855-6),  1st  Sess. 
(1857-8),  1st  Sess.  (1861),  1st  Sess.  (1865). 

b.  Private  Acts. 

Called  Sess.  (1824),  1st  Sess.  (1833). 

III.  General  Slave  Treatises. 

1.  Dobb,  T.  R.  R.,  Inquiry  into  the  Law  of  Negro  Slavery 

in  the  United  States,  Philadelphia,  1858. 

2.  Goodell,  William,  The  American  Slave  Code  in  Theory 

and  Practice,  New  York,  1853. 

3.  Kurd,  John  Codman,  Laws  of  Freedom  and  Bondage, 

2  Vols.,  Boston,  1858-1862. 

4.  Straud,  George  M.,  Sketch  of  the  Laws  Relating  to 

Slavery,  Philadelphia,  1856. 

5.  Wheeler,  Jacob  D.,  A  Practical  Treatise  on  the  Law 

of  Slavery,  New  York,  1837. 


204  University  of  Texas  Bulletin 

IV.  North  Carolina  Codes. 

1.  Davis,  James,  Laws  of  North  Carolina  (this  is  really 

an  edition  of  Swann's  Laws),  New  Berne,  1752. 

2.  Iredell,    James,    Laws    of    North    Carolina,    Edenton, 

1791. 

3.  Swann,  Samuel,  Laws  of  North  Carolina,  New  Berne, 

1752. 

V.  Codes  of  Tennessee. 

1.  Caruthers,  R.  L.,  Laws  of  Tennessee,  Nashville,  1810. 

2.  Caruthers,  R.  L.,  and  Nicholson,  A.  O.  P.,  Statutes  of 

Tennessee  (1786-1836). 

3.  Haywood,  John,  Laws  of  Tennessee,  Nashville,  1810. 

4.  Haywood,  John,  and  Cobb,  Robt.  L.,  Laws  of  Tennes- 

see, Nashville,  1831. 

5.  Meigs,  Return  J.,  and   Cooper,  William   F.,   Code  of 

Tennessee,  Nashville,  1858. 

6.  Nicholson,  A.   O.   P.,  Laws   of  Tennessee,   Nashville 

1846. 

7.  Scott,  Edward,  Laws  of  Tennessee  (1715-1820). 

VI.  Court  Reports  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee. 

1.  Caldwell,  Thomas  H.,  7  Vols.   (1860-1870),  Columbia, 

Mo.,  1906. 

2.  Hawks,    Francis    L.,    3    Vols.    (1821-1825),    Winston, 

N.  C.,  1897. 

3.  Head,  John  W.,  3  Vols.    (1858-1859),  Columbia,  Mo., 

1906. 

4.  Heiskell,  Joseph  B.,  12  Vols.   (1870-1874),  Louisville, 

Ky.,  1903. 

5.  Humphrey,  West  H.,  11  Vols.   (1839-1851),  Louisville, 

Ky.,  1903. 

6.  Lea,   Benjamin   J.,   16   Vols.    (1878-1886),   Louisville, 

Ky.,  1902. 

7.  Martin,  John  H.,  and  Yerger,  George  S.,  1  Vol.  (1827- 

1828),  Louisville,  Ky.,  1903. 

8.  Meigs,  Return  J.,  1  Vol.  (1838-1839),  Louisville,  Ky., 

1903. 

9.  Sneed,  John  L.  T.,  5  Vols.  (1853-1858),  Columbia,  Mo., 

1906. 

10.  Yerger,   George   S.,   10  Vols.    (1818-1837),   Columbia, 
Mo.,  1912. 

VII.  Reports  of  the  Comptroller  to  the  General  Assembly  for  the 
years  1850,  1855-6,  1856,  1857-8,  and  1859-60. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  205 

VIII.  Reports,  Proceedings,  and  Minutes. 

1.  Minutes  of  the  American   Convention  for  the  years 

1822,  1823,  1825,  1827,  1829,  1830,  1848,  1852,  1860, 
and  1867  (1818-1867). 

2.  Minutes  of  the  General  Methodist  Conferences,  1773- 

1844. 

3.  Minutes  of  the  General  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 

Church  South,  1845-1865. 

4.  Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodists 

in  Tennessee,  1813-1865   (Quoted  in  McFerrin,  His- 
tory of  Methodism  in  Tennessee). 

5.  Proceedings  of  the  Southern  Baptist  Convention,  1845- 

1865. 

6.  Minutes  of  the   Cumberland   Presbyterian   Assembly, 

1811-1865. 

7.  Minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 

Church,  1795-1865. 

8.  The  Fifth  and  Twenty- seventh  Annual  Reports  of  the 

American  Anti-slavery  Society. 

9.  The   Ninth   and   Thirteenth   Annual   Reports   of   the 

American  and  Foreign  Anti-slavery  Society  for  the 
years  1849  ad  1853. 

IX.  Periodicals. 

The  Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation,  Vols.  I,  II,  IV,  V, 
VI,  VII,  VIII. 

American  Historical  Magazine,  II,  IX,  XXI. 

Publications  of  Vanderbilt  Southern  Historical  Society, 
No.  2. 

Indiana  Historical   Society  Publications,  Vol.  2. 

The  Tennessee  History  Magazine,  Vols.  1,  2,  and  4. 

Quarterly  Anti-Slavery  Magazine,  Vols.  1,  2,  and  4. 

Niles  Register,  Vols.  1-75  (1811-1849),  Washington,  Bal- 
timore, and  Philadelphia. 

De  Bow,  J.  D.  B.,  Commercial  Review  of  the  South  and 
West,  39  Vols.  (1846-1870),  New  Orleans. 

African  Repository,  Vols.  V,  VI,  VII,  IX,  XXII,  XXIII, 
XXIV,  XXV. 

American  Historical  Review,  Vols.  Ill,  V. 

Publications  of  North  Carolina  Historical  Commission,  I. 

Political  Science  Quarterly,  Vols.  IX,  XX. 

Southern  History  Association  Publications,  II. 

Quarterly  Review  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  South,  April, 
1892. 

Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  Vols.  LVII  and  LXIII. 

The  Liberator,  July  25,  1835. 

The  Emancipator    (New  York),   March  8  and  16,  1838. 


206  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

X.  Newspapers. 

The  Aurora  and  General  Advertiser,  Memphis,  Septem- 
ber 3,  1802. 

Nashville  Banner,  Nashville,  October  15  and  November 
16,  1833. 

The  Knoxville  Gazette,  Knoxville,  January  23,  1797. 

Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  Bolivar,  1831. 

Tennessee  Gazette  and  Mero  District,  Nashville,  Novem- 
ber 22,  1805. 

The  Practical   Farmer  and    Mechanic,    Somerville,   1857. 

Nashville  Republican  and  State  Gazette,  Nashville,  July 
1,  5,  10,  15,  28,  1834. 

The   Western   Freeman,    Shelbyville,   September   6,   1831. 

The  Charleston  Mercury,  Charleston,  S.  C.,  April  30,  1861. 

Memphis  Avalanche  and  Memphis  Appeal,  Memphis,  May 
9,  10,  and  11,  1861. 

Randolph  Recorder,  Vol.  I,  Covington,  1834. 

Memphis   Equirer,  Vols.   I   and   II,   Memphis,   1836-1837. 

The  Weekly  American  Eagle,  Vols.  11-V,  Memphis,  1843- 
1847. 

The  Memphis  Daily  Eagle,  Vols.  III-VII,  1846-1850. 
Memphis. 

The  Tri-Weekly  Memphis  Enquirer,  IV,  1846,  Memphis. 

Memphis   Daily  Appeal,   V,   1855,   Memphis. 

XI.  Petitions  in  the  State  Archives  at  Nashville  in  Manuscript 
covering  period  1809-1834. 

XII.  Personal   Writings   and   Reminiscences. 

1.  Cartwright,   Peter,   Autobiography,    Edited   by  W.    P. 

Strickland,  New  York,  1892-1897. 

2.  Jefferson,  Thomas,  Writings,  Edited  by  P.  L.  Ford,  10 

Vols.,  New  York,  1892-1897. 

3.  Johnson,  Rev.  John  and  His  House,  Recollections,  An 

Autobiography,  Edited  by  Mrs.  Susannah  Johnson, 
Nashville,  1869. 

4.  Otey,  Rt.  Rev.  James  H.,  Memoirs,  Edited  by  W.  M. 

Green,  New  York,  1885 

5.  Pendleton,  James   Madison,   Reminiscences  of  a   Long 

Life,  Louisville,  1891. 

6.  Sumner,  Charles,  Works,  15  Vols.,  Boston,  1874-1883. 

7.  Stirling,  James,  Letters  from  the   Slave  States,  Lon- 

don, 1857. 

8.  Thomas,    Thomas    Ebenezer,    Correspondence    Mainly 

Relative  to  the  Anti-slavery   Conflict  in   Ohio,  es- 
pecially in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  Dayton,  1909. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  207 

B.  Secondary  Works. 

I.  State  Histories. 

1.  Caldwell,  Joshua  W.,   Constitutional  History  of  Ten- 

nessee, Cincinnati,  1895. 

2.  Caldwell,  Joshua  W.,  The  Bench  and  Bar  of  Tennessee, 

Knoxville,  1898. 

3.  Garret,   W.   R.,   and   Goodpasture,   A.   V.,   History   of 

Tennessee,  Nashville,  1900. 

4.  Goodspeed,  History  of  Tennessee,  Nashville,  1886. 

5.  Hale,   William   T.   and   Merrit,   Dixon   L.,   History  of 

Tennessee,  Vol.  2,  Chicago  and  New  York,  1913. 

6.  Phelan,   James,    History   of    Tennessee,   Boston,    1888. 

7.  Putnam,  A.  W.,  History  of  Middle  Tennessee,   Nash- 

ville, 1859. 

8.  Temple,  Oliver  P.,  East  Tennessee  and  the  Civil  War, 

Cincinnati,  1899. 

II.  General  Histories. 

1.  Adams,  Alice  D.,  Neglected  Period  of  Anti-slavery  in 

America,  1808-1831,  Boston,  1908. 

2.  Brickell,  John,   Natural   History  of   North   Carolina, 

Dublin,  1911. 

3.  Doyle,   J.   A.,   The    English    Colonies   in    America,   5 

Vols.,  New  York,  1888. 

4.  Hammond,  M.  B.,   The  Cotton  Industry,  New  York, 

1897. 

5.  Ingraham,  J.  H.,  The  Sunny  South,  Philadelphia,  1860. 

6.  Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth 

Century,  8  Vols.,  London,  1878-1890. 

7.  May,  Sir  Thomas  Erskine,  Constitutional  History  of 

England,  3  Vols.,  New  York,  1910. 

8.  Phillips,    Ulrich    Bonnel,    American)   Negro    Slavery, 

New  York,  1918. 

9.  Poole,  William  Frederick,  Anti-slavery  Opinions  be- 

fore 1800,  Cincinnati,  1873. 

10.  Rhodes,  James  Ford,   History  of  the   United   States, 

8  Vols.,  New  York,  1900-1919. 

11.  Roosevelt,    Theodore,    The    Winning   of   the   West,    4 

Vols.    (Statesman  Edition),  New  York,  1904. 

III.  Biography. 

1.  Cartwright,   Peter,    Fifty   Years   a   Presiding   Eldev, 

Cincinnati,  1871. 

2.  Cossit,   Franceway   Ranna,   The   Life   and   Times   of 

Rev.  Finis  Ewing,  Louisville,  1853. 

3.  Du  Bose,  Horace  M.,  Life  of  Francis  Asbury,  Nash- 

ville, 1909. 


208  University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 

4.  Earl,  Thomas,  Life  of  Benjamin  Lundy,  Philadelphia, 

1847. 

5.  Garrison,   Wendell    Phillips   and    J.    F.,   The    Life   of 

William  Loyd  Garrison,  New  York,  1885. 

6.  Green,  Wm.,  Life  and  Letters  of  Rev.  A.  L.  P.  Green, 

Nashville,  1877. 

7.  Milburn,    W.    H.,    Ten    Years    of   a    Preacher's    Life, 

Nashville,  1859. 

8.  Paine,  Robert,  Life  and  Times  of  William  McKendree, 

Nashville,  1869. 

9.  Parton,  James,  Life  and  Times  of  Benjamin  Frank- 

lin, 2  Vols.,  Boston,  1867. 

10.  Smith,  G.  G.,  The  Life  and  Letters  of  James  Osgood 

Andrew,  Nashville,  1883. 

11.  Swift,  Lindsay,  Life  of  Garrison,  Philadelphia,  1911. 

12.  Tyerman,   L.,   Life   of   Whitefield,   New   York,    1873. 

13.  Wightman,  W.  M.,  Life  of  William  Capers,  Nashville, 

1859. 

IV.  Church  History. 

1.  American  Church  History  Series,  XI,  XII,  New  York, 

1894. 

2.  Bedford,  A.  H.,  History  of  the  Organization  of  the 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  Nashville,  1871. 

3.  Briggs,  Charles  A.,  American  Presbyterianism,  New 

York,  1885. 

4.  Buckley,  James   M.,   History  of   Methodism,   2   Vols., 

New  York  and  London,  1898. 

5.  Curtis,    George    L.,    Manual   of   Methodist   Episcopal 

Church  History,  New  York,  1840. 

6.  Emory,  John,  History  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Meth- 

odist Episcopal  Church,  New  York,  1840. 

7.  Finley,  J.  B.,  Sketch  of  Western  Methodism,  Cincin- 

nati, 1854. 

8.  Gillet,  E.  H.,  History  of  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 

United   States  of  America,  Philadelphia,  I   and  II, 
no  date. 

9.  Harrison,  W.  P.,  The  Gospel  among  the  Slaves,  Nash- 

ville, 1893. 

10.  Matlock,  L.   C.,  The  Anti-slavery  Struggle  and   Tri- 

umph   in    the    Methodist    Episcopal    Church,    New 
York,  1881. 

11.  Matlock,  L.  C.,  The  History  of  American  Slavery  and 

Methodism,   1780-1849,   New  York,   1849. 

12.  McConnell,    S.    D.,    History    of    American    Episcopal 

Church,  New  York,  1897. 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  209 

13.  McDonald,  B.  W.,   History  of  Cumberland  Presbyte- 

rian Church,  Nashville,  1888. 

14.  McFerrin,  J.  B.,  History  of  Methodism  in  Tennessee, 

3  Vols.,  Nashville,   1869. 

15.  McNeilly,  James  H.,  Religion  and  Slavery,  Nashville, 

1911. 

16.  McTyeire,   H.   N.,   History   of   Methodism,   Nashville, 

1904. 

17.  Newman,  A.  H.,  History  of  Baptist  Churches  in  the 

United  States,  New  York,  1894. 

18.  Patton,  Jacob  Harris,  Popular  History  of  the  Pres- 

byterian Church,  New  York,  1900. 

19.  Pius,   N.   H.,  An   Outline  of  Baptist  History,  Nash- 

ville, 1911. 

20.  Price,  R.  N.,  Holston  Methodism,  5  Vols.,  Nashville, 

1912. 

21.  Riley,   B.    F.,    History   of   the   Baptists   in    Southern 

States  East  of  the  Mississippi,  Philadelphia,  1898. 

22.  Thompson,    Robert    Ellis,    History    of    Presbyterian 

Churches   in  the  United    States,   New   York,   1895. 

23.  Weeks,  S.'B.,  Southern  Quakers  and  Slavery,  Balti- 

more, 1896. 

APPENDICES 

A.  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETIES  OF  TENNESSEE. 

I.  Tennessee  Manumission  Society  1815. 

County  Branches:  Blount,  Greene,  Washington,  Jefferson, 

Knox. 

Local  Branches:  Bethesda,  Beaver  Creek,  Carter's  Station, 
Chestooy,  Dumplin  Creek,  French  Broad,  Hickory  Creek, 
Holston,  Knoxville,  Little  River,  Maryville,  Middle  Creek, 
Mount  Gilead,  Nolichucky,  Powell's  Valley,  Stock  Creek, 
Turkey  Creek,  and  Rock  Creek. 
II.  Humane  Protection  Society  of  Tennessee,  1821. 

III.  Moral,   Religious   Manumission   Society  of  Tennessee,   1821. 

IV.  Emancipating  Labor  Society,  1826. 

B.  TENNESSEE  COLONIZATION  SOCIETY,  1829. 

Branches:  Boliver,  Somerville,  Memphis,  Covington,  Jackson, 
Paris,  Clarksville,  Columbia,  Shelbyville,  Winchester,  Murfrees- 
boro,  Gallatin,  Knoxville,  Marysville,  New  Market,  Jonesboro, 
Kingsport,  Rutherford,  Franklin. 


210 


University'  of  Texas  Bulletin 


C.  ANTI-SLAVERY  LEADERS  IN  TENNESSEE. 


Anderson,  Robert 
Brazelton,  Santy 
Boyd,  James 
Brooks,  Stephen 
Buckhart,  George 
Caldwell,  James 
Cain,  Joseph 
Callen,  Archibald 
Campbell,  Alexander 
Canaday,  John 
Cartwright,  Peter 
Coppock,  Aaron 
Coulson,  John 
Cowan,  Andrew 
Criswell,  Andrew 
Cummings,  James 
Daily,  Hiram 
Dalzel,  David 
Earnest,  Lawrence 
Earnest,  Wesley 
Embree,  Elihu 
Embree,   Elijah 
Frazier,  Abner 
Galbraith,  James 
Garrett,   William 
Gray,  Asa 
Hackney,  Aaron 
Hammer,  Aaron 
Hammer,  Isaac 
Hammer,  Elisha 
HarTison,  Isaiah 
Harris,  John 


Ho£ge,  Thomas 
Hooks,  John 
Houston,   James 
Huffaker,  Justice 
Kerr,  John 
Kendall,   T.    S. 
Kennedy,  James 
Lee,  William 
Lee,  Ephriam 
Leeper,  Allen 
Lindsey,    Philip 
Lockhart,  Jesse 
Logan,  Alexander 
Lundy,  Benjamin 
Malcum,  William 
Mainess,  Samuel 
Marshall,  John 
Maulsby,  David 
McCampbell,  James 
McClellan,  James 
McCarkle,  Francis 
McKeen,  Thomas  H. 
Deadrick,  David 
Doak,  Samuel 
Dean,  Thomas 
Eggleston,  Elijah 
Newman,  Joseph 
Osborn,   Charles 
Osborn,  J. 
Pardae,  John 
Pickering,  Ellis 
Pickering,   Enos 


Rankin,  John 
Rencan,  Thomas 
Roberts,  William 
Roy,  Rev.  John 
Jones,  James 
Jones,  Isaac 
Jones,  Isaiah 
Jones,  Thomas 
Johnson,  Josiah 
Smith,  Isaac 
Snoddy,  William 
Stanfield,  David 
Swain,  Elihu 
Swain,  John 
Swan,  John 
Tuckers,  Joseph 
Underbill,  Richard 
Undehill,  Jesse 
McNees,  Samuel 
Milliken,  William 
Moore,  John 
Morgan,  John 
Wilkins,  J.  H. 
Williams,  John 
Williams,  Richard 
Willis,  Jesse 
Wills,  George 
Wilson,  P.  N. 
Woods,  W.  W. 
Yerkley,  Henry 


D.  LIST  OP  EMIGRANTS  TO  LIBERIA  FROM  TENNESSEE,  1820-1866. 


Ship  Date 

Ship  Harriet January,  1829 

Brig  Liberia December,  1823 

Ship  Roanoke December,  1832 

Brig  Ajax May,  1833 

Schooner  Oriental May,  1837 

Brig  Rudolph  Gronning February,  1841 

Barque  Union May,    1841 

Ship  Mariposa June,  1842 

Barque  Rothschild January,  1846 

Schooner  D.  C.  Foster March,    1850 


No.  of  Emigrants 

2 
13 

1 

5 

34 
10 
10 
84 
25 
35 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865  211 

Liberia  Packet December,   1850  15 

Brig  Alida February,  1851  18 

Liberia  Packet December,  1851  26 

Brig  Julia  Ford January,  1852  13 

Brig  Zebra December,   1852  28 

Bark  Adeline June,   1853  96 

Brig  General  Pierce December,  1853  85 

Ship  Sophia  Walker May,  1854  28 

Brig  Harp June,  1854  21 

Brig  General  Pierce December,    1854  17 

Bark  Cora May,  1855  13 

Bark  Cora .  .November,  1855  31 

Ship  Elvira  Owen May,  1856  42 

Ship  M.  C.  Stephens December,  1856  13 

Ship  M.  C.  Stephens May,  1857  23 

Ship  M.  C.  Stephens November,  1859  21 

Ship  M.  C.  Stephens May,  1860  8 

Golconda November,  1866  144 

E.  VICE-PRESIDENTS    OF    AMERICAN    COLONIZATION    SOCIETY    FROM 

TENNESSEE. 

Andrew  Jackson 1819-1822 

Rt.    Rev.    Bishop    Otey 1840-1863 

Rev.   Dr.   Edgar 1845-1861 

Rev.  P.  Lindsley,  D.D 1845-1854 

Bishop    Soule,   D.D 1848-1867 

Hon.  Frederick  P.   Stanton 1851-1858 

Hon.    John    Bell 1861-1868 

F.  COMPARATIVE  LIST  OF  MANUMISSION  SOCIETIES  AND  MEMBERS  IN 

UNITED  STATES. 

Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island  and  New  York  4  300 

Pennsylvania   (East) 4  400 

Pennsylvania   (West) 12  500 

Delaware 2  100 

Maryland 11  500 

District  of   Columbia 2  100 

Virginia 8  250 

Ohio 4  300 

Kentucky. 8  200 

Tennessee 25  1,000 

North   Carolina    50  3,000 

130*  6,625 

*Exclusive  of  ten  or  twelve  societies  in  Illinois.     Observe  that  106 
of  these  societies  were  in  slaveholding  states. 


212 


University*  of  Texas  Bulletin 


G.     SLAVE  AND  FREE  NEGRO  POPULATION  IN  TENNESSEE  FROM  1790- 
1860. 


1790. 
1800. 
1810. 
1820. 
1830. 
1840. 
1850. 
1860. 


3,417 

13,584 

44,734 

80,105 

141,647 

183,059 

239,439 

275,719 


361 
309 
1,318 
2,739 
4,511 
5,524 
6,442 
7,300 


H.    COMPARATIVE  VALUE  OF  LAND  AND  SLAVES  IN  THE  THREE  DIVI- 
SIONS OF  TENNESSEE,  1859. 

Other 

Land         Town  Lots        Slaves         Property    Aggregate 
East  Ten- 
nessee $  46,127,012  $  3,044,802  $  10,470,926  $  4,333,845  $  64,186,514 
Mid.  Ten- 
nessee   114,053,549      5,832,718      55,850,579    13,229,968    188,867,004 
West  Ten- 
nessee     52,640,432    20,893,338      44,638,752      5,030,225    124,155,123 

212,820,993    29,770,858    110,960,257    22,594,038    377,208,641 

I.    APPROXIMATE  VALUE  OF  PROPERTY,  SLAVES,  LAND,  AND  COTTON  IN 

TENNESSEE. 


Year 


Property 


1836 $117,845,136 

1838 125,013,756 

1840 122,957,624 

1842 118,847,672 

1844 109,178,121 

1846 113,176,959 

1848 129,510,043 

1850 159,558,183 

1852 186,621,119 

1854 219,011,047 

1856 260,319,611 

1858 320,398,012 

1859 377,208,641 


Slaves 

Per  Acre 

Land 

$584.00 

$4.00 

540.00 

3.82 

543.00 

3.84 

509.00 

3.56 

420.00 

3.35 

413.72 

,    3.03 

467.44 

3.06 

506.93 

3.25 

547.26 

3.84 

605.52 

4.60 

689.00 

5,49 

792.23 

7.04 

854.65 

8.19 

Per  Lb. 
Cotton 

$.17V2 


.09 
.08 

.07  V2 

.05  y2 
.09  y2 

.12 

.11 

.12 

.12% 

.14 

.15 


The  Negro  in  Tennessee,  1790-1865 


213 


J.     CLASSIFICATION  OF  SLAVE  HOLDERS  IN  TENNESSEE  AND  THE  UNITED 
STATES,  I860.* 

Holders  of  Tennessee  United  States 

1 7,820  76,670 

2 4,738  45,934 

3 3,609  34,747 

4 3,012  28,907 

5 2,536  24,225 

6 2,066  20,600 

7 1,783  17,235 

8 1,565  14,852 

9 1,260  12,511 

10  to  15 3,779  40,367 

15  to  20 1,744  21,315 

20  to  30 1,623  20,789 

30  to  40 643  9,648 

40  to  50 284  5,179 

50  to  70 219  5,217 

70  to  100 116  3,149 

100  to  200 40  1,980 

200  to  300 6  224 

300  to  500 1  74 

500  to  1000 0  13 

1000   and   over 0  1 

*  These  figures  are  for  the  United  States,  exclusive  of  territories 


and  District  of  Columbia. 


VITA 


Caleb  Perry  Patterson  was  born  at  Saltillo,  Tennessee,  January 
23,  1880.  He  was  graduated  from  Vanderbilt  University  in  1911 
with  the  degrees  of  A.B.  and  A.M.  He  attended  the  graduate  school 
of  the  University  of  Chicago  1911-12.  He  was  head  of  the  department 
of  history  of  the  West  Tennessee  State  Normal  School,  Memphis, 
Tennessee,  from  1912  to  1918.  He  was  an  Austin  Fellow  at  Harvard 
University  1915-16,  where  he  received  the  M.A.  degree  1916.  He 
attended  Columbia  University  in  the  summers  of  1916  and  '19  and 
the  year  1918-19.  He  was  Instructor  in  History  at  Columbia  1918-19. 
He  had  courses  at  Columbia  under  Professors  Dunning,  Muzzey,  Ken- 
drick,  Robinson,  Shepherd,  Johnson,  Sait,  and  Seligman  and  a  seminar 
under  Professor  Dunning.  He  received  the  LL.B.  degree  from  the 
University  of  Texas,  1921.  He  is  now  Adjunct  Professor  of  Govern- 
ment and  Chairman  of  Ihe  Department  of  Government  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Texas. 


THIS   BOOK   IS   DUE  ON   THE  LAST   DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 


BOOKS   REQUESTED  BY  ANOTHER  BORROWER 
ARE  SUBJECT  TO   IMMEDIATE   RECALL 


LIBRARY,   UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

Book  Slip-Series  458 


N9  539626 


Patterson,  C.P. 
The  negro  in 
Tennessee,  1790-1865, 


T3 
P21 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


